"I think it's somewhat of a fallacy that newspapers have come to the digital world late."
-- Randy Bennett, vice president of audience and new business development, Newspaper Association of America, in a MarketWatch story today on whether newspapers are toast.
(Confidential to NAA Chairwoman and top Gannett exec Sue Clark-Johnson: This is 2008, m'am -- not 1998.)
(Confidential to NAA Chairwoman and top Gannett exec Sue Clark-Johnson: This is 2008, m'am -- not 1998.)
This is more evidence the newspaper industry is still in denial. I'd love to know how much Gannett pays in annual NAA membership dues.
ReplyDeleteWell, guess we better just shut down all the newspapers and pull our web sites off the net. Games over. No hope of turning things around.
ReplyDeleteGracious, no. Just the opposite. While there's still a chance, the industry needs to recognize the reality of the situation -- that newspapers are, indeed, woefully late to the game -- and significantly increase net investments in digital. As opposed to the current situation: Pretending to invest in the future, while cutting, cutting, cutting.
ReplyDeleteGo read my post about eight historical mistakes newspapers made.
ReplyDeleteNobody's arguing that mistakes haven't been made and time lost, but it's rather disingenuous to criticize Randy for saying there is still hope, there are still things to be done, it's not too late to turn the ship around, and then say that isn't really what you meant.
Newsrooms are late to the game because reporters and editors have resisted and resisted and resisted for more than a decade. I and many of my colleagues (including Randy Bennett) been fighting to get newsrooms to take online seriously since 1995. We've provided ideas, tools and strategies, only to be met either by yawns or outright hostility. We've been met with blank stares, shrugged shoulders, and a "just put my story online after its in print, it's not my business" attitude, rather than real engagement about what really needs to take place.
And while there are more and more journalists embracing online (visit wiredjournalists.com), there are still more resisters than adopters (see your own post here).
Just look at all whining in Gannett about the Info Center -- hell, look at your own post about it. The Info Center about the only smart thing Gannett has done since the launch of USAToday, and yet most of what I hear from gannettoids (as you all apparently like to be called) is near endlessly bitching about it.
It's one of the true success stories in driving online audience for newspapers, yet it gets ridiculed on this blog whenever the subject comes up.
There's a lot about the Info Center to admire and learn from (and some mistakes, too). There's a lot of great experiments in the vein of CincyMoms that is worth copying throughout the industry, but all I catch here is flak for people like Jennifer Carroll, who actually had the courage to push through some real change rather than stand pat in the face of newsroom opposition.
So I do not read much hope for the newspaper industry, or Gannett, when I read Gannett blog. In fact, for all the criticism here of Gannett, I can't recall ever seeing one innovative idea in this blog. Gannett Blog's only prescription it seems, is stop paying the CEO so much and hire more reporters. Well, newspapers greatly expanded staffs in the 1980s and early '90s. Look where that got us.
Jennifer Carroll and Courage is a great oxymoron. All she had was a great ability to suck up to Sue Clark Johnson and Craig Dubow. Now, if you had said Jennifer Carroll and ass-kisser together then you would have hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteHere's a great example of courage -- an anonymous attack on a person.
ReplyDeleteIronic, isn't it?
Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of working for her knows that Jennifer Carroll is not a journalist. She's a brilliant corporate actor who performs well at meetings. She knows how to string buzzwords together in a seemingly coherent way. It's no surprise she impressed that alarmingly powerful lightweight Phil Currie.
ReplyDeleteThe folks who worked with her when she was managing editor of the Detroit News vividly remember her terrible news judgment and poor management skills. She once ordered up a story about how the setting sun gets in commuters' eyes when they are driving westward, and she had Features do a story about how to clean up scum from a backyard pond. Both of these stories were based on her apparently quite banal life.
My complaint with the Information Center model wasn't/isn't with the concept. Of COURSE newspapers must emphasize digital. My complaint is in the execution: The idea that newsrooms can simultaneously bulk up their websites and PDA distribution, while also putting out a credible print paper while also enduring staff cutbacks is Kool-Aid thinking at its worst.
ReplyDeleteAnd newsroom staffers haven't all been resisting digital. As long ago as 1995, I asked then Gannett newspaper division President Gary Watson about the wisdom of continued investments almost only in print, when I couldn't get Corporate to support a website for The Idaho Statesman. Watson could barely conceal his contempt in replying. See my post on that encounter, here: http://tinyurl.com/2cx3wu
Up until the Info Center, Gannett's web sites were seen around the industry as being rather backward. There was no vision or focus for online. It was mostly shovelware.
ReplyDeleteThe Info Center was a big, bold step forward and the last thing industry watches expected from Gannett.
My experience with online has always been from an evangelist point of view -- the one telling journalists, "hey, have you checked out blogs?" Up until two years ago, I could hardly find reporters who had the faintest idea about blogging. Most were still worried about "scooping themselves."
I'm not part of the "blame executives first" crowd, but then, I never worked for Gannett. I've spent most of my time around industry executives who have known for a long time what newspapers need to do online, but have been frustrated by the feet dragging from news and sales staffs.
Still, I applaud Jennifer Carroll for pushing the Info Center through. For a company like Gannett, she seems to have taken the only logical course of action.
The problem isn't with asking newsrooms to more with less -- that's just reality -- the problem is the inability to restructure news operations to fit a new era (it's damn hard to shake the shackles of print when print is still the core revenue). And all newspaper companies are struggling with that. Gannett isn't unique in that regard. It's very hard to put out a newspaper and operate a web-centric newspaper.com. But I also know it can be done. I've seen it done. Newsrooms can learn to work more efficiently and effectively to keep churning out ink on paper and doing a credible job of updating the web site (with video, too!)
BTW: Overall, fwiw, I think you're blog is great, and a great service to Gannett (and the rest of us who read it). Some alternative views are usually helpful, so long as they're not mean spirited. I didn't mean my previous comment to come off as a round condemnation of what you're doing, if it did. I just wanted to throw out my own alternative view.
Thanks. And I didn't feel condemned. I like it when you visit, Howard; you always make me think.
ReplyDeleteYou talk like Jennifer Carroll, on her own, created the information center concept and, with the help of no one, pushed the idea thru as everyone else was screaming, "no, no, not this." There's only one person who could have told this tale? If you are so impressed with her why don't you try to grab up her talents? I'm sure your company would be willing to put out big bucks for her and then the people at Gannett who were behind it, and really understand what it takes to make change happen, can get some credit.
ReplyDeleteJumping in here for a moment with a point that I think is significant to the discussion:
ReplyDeleteHaving logged almost a dozen years in a variety of roles for a Gannett web site after a comparable amount of time in a newsroom, the No. 1 obstacle I saw was resistance to change -- but not by the rank-and-file. It was upper management that always seemed to move too slowly, ans I think it was out of fear of making a career-killing mis-step.
That's somewhat understandable (not to be confused with acceptable) and the corporate vs. locally made decisions issue is not unique to Gannett by any means. But it was a killer with respect to building robust, essential web portals and destinations.
I'm out of the game now (well, actually playing on a different field) and am of the opinion that Gannett is making up for lost time, but they're still behind much of the rest of the pack because of those initial 8-10 years of reluctant participation by publishers and some of their direct reports.
Howard, please take off your Gannett-colored glasses for a moment and honestly tell us if you think the company's Web sites have vision, focus, and represent a bold step forward. And please provide specifics about why you think that.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are those industry executives telling you that needs to happen, but won't because of feet-dragging? Please be specific. What needs to be done?
And what news companies are you talking about that have been successful at working more efficiently and effectively by doing more with less? Where have you "seen it done?" Let's see the proof.
Exactly, 11:59 ...
ReplyDeleteJennifer Carroll hasn't had an original thought in years. She's a great orator in conveying a mission, but mostly another corporate yes-person who falls in line and pushes down the latest initiative.
That said, the frustration with everyone is that Gannett does indeed have some credible initiatives but can't (and doesn't) implement them well at all because it doesn't provide adequate and necessary resources and infrastructure to execute them properly.
And, without any kind of marketing budget, none of its sites can promote the many opportunities it provides readers. Thus, they go elsewhere.
A cousin of mine recently canceled his subscription to the Lansing State Journal, after being a loyal customer for more than 30 years. He didn't receive one call, letter or Email asking why. No one tried to get his business back - and it's been two months since he stopped.
Why did he stop? Online. It's free. And he doesn't go to www.lsj.com, he goes to www.mlive.com (Booth Newspapers) because it provides better and more timely information.
The irony is that Currie, Carroll, etc. keep emphasizing local-local, while GCI continues to offshore jobs or consolidate services outside the local markets. Local-local shouldn't be just for news / content. It should be true for all departments and services provided.
Well, it goes against the grain to respond to anonymous comments ... but
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to go too far down the path of a critique Gannett's web efforts. I said the Info Center was a great move (I've said elsewhere previously, it was a great framing of several different initiatives that other papers had tried individually previously, but never collectively and never so boldly). I didn't say Gannett had great web sites. There is still much that is amiss with the strategy, even with the new web designs being rolled out (imho). But then, we've got a long way to go, too ... but we're basically a start-up company.
I responded because I think the Info Center criticism I find on this site are unfounded and fail to see the initiative in its full context.
That doesn't mean I agree with everything Gannett does online, or even with the Info Center. You'll notice we're not implementing the Info Center, and the Gannett papers we acquired are not exactly following the Info Center model any more. That said, the main concepts of the Info Center are all part of our strategy.
If you want more depth on the strategy some of us believe newspapers should be pursuing online but are frustrated by feet dragging, read my blog. I've been discussing this for a couple of years, as have others in their blogs. You can use mediageeks.org to search out any number of subjects that might interest you (it's a search engine of just media-news-related sites and blogs).
In our chain, good examples include Somerville and Cambridge; former Gannett papers in Rockford and Utica and Norwich are making good progress; in the Freedom chain, Shelby, North Carolina is a shining example. There's also Bakersfield, and to some extent, Ventura (where I encounterd a lot of feet dragging when I worked there, but seems to have largely turned that around). Bakersfield probably represents the most fully converged online/print newsroom -- and it's a guild shop. Yes, it's one paper and it's family owned, but the ownership lays off people and protects its profit margins as aggressively as any public company. It is still a great example of how a newsroom can spin all the plates on a budget (for those who don't know, I'm formerly the VP of interactive in Bakersfield).
As for the anonymous rants against Jennifer Carroll ... strong leaders piss people off, so I guess you're telling me, after all, she's a strong leader. Since you don't have the courage to put your names on your attacks, I have no other conclusion to reach but that you're cowards with no truth to support your assertions.
And I have no particular friendship with Jennifer. We've met twice, though we do both serve on the audience development committee for NAA (and we circle back to the original post -- that's how I know Steve). She seems like a fine, smart, strong person to me. She doesn't need me to defend her, but anonymous attacks against people seem to violate every ethical bone you would expect to find in a professional journalist's body.
Clearly someone ought to be able to come up with a business model that makes more money???? But, like so many other past initiatives, they always got executed out of the deafening staleness of the newspaper...where mold and too much mildew exists.
ReplyDeleteAmidst the several tyrants and publishers who threw chairs, and editors who threw newspapers, there were and are professionals who give a damn.
Howard,
ReplyDeleteI have plenty of examples that support my feelings about Jennifer Carroll. That said, you are correct that I will not put my name to anything negative about Gannett or the people who work there. Why? Because they are a company that does not appreciate anything but glowing reports about how wonderful they are and how wonderful everything they do is. They do not take well to any sort of criticism, regardless of the motivation behind it. This is yet another legacy of the Sue Clark Johnson regime.
I find it interesting that you have met Jennifer twice and she seems smart so now you have taken the leap to her being a strong leader. There are many in Gannett, current and past, that strongly disagree, but we are all losers who won't put our name behind the truth we speak.
I hope one day I am as smart as you.
C'est vrai. The cost and the expense of the truth. Past regional president's who ruled with iron fists and mouths. And many today who stand on the outside...with glee. Sad and happy at the same time.
ReplyDeleteBakersfield.org does look great...congrats to them.
Yes, newspaper chains like Gannett are NOT forgiving...not one shred, not one ounce.
It's Bakersfield.com.
ReplyDeleteAnd, if you're going to criticize anything or anyone, put your name on it. To do anything less is unethical, and journalists should always strive to be ethical (think of the example your setting for any non-journalists who come across this thread). If you can't put your name on it, then there is no excuse for unethically slamming somebody anonymously. Sorry, I won't compromise on that point.
I guess I'm lucky that I don't see you as someone who determines my ethics or someone I care enough about to care what you think.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am impressed with about Howard Owens is: The man has some serious guts.
ReplyDeleteHe's willing to put himself out there and commit to an idea and opinion. It's refreshing. You see, Howard, it's been a long time since I've seen the Gannett editors I work with have guts like yours.
Howard, I know you don't apprecaite anonymous criticism, but then you've not worked with the people I have, and you've not seen what they do to people who criticize - even mildly. They also have started giving any "directional changes" verbally - never in e-mail or in any written form - so they can backtrack if the winds change.
Howard, they don't have your fortitude. Because MANY Gannett managers emulate that very same spineless style, the organization is in trouble. Anytime masses of people are unwilling to say what they think and only agree that the emporor's clothes are beautiful, their organization crumbles. And that is the way of Gannett these days.
Hopefully, nobody in my company ever feels the need to hide behind anonymity (though there have been anonymous comments on my blog from people who clearly seem to work for GHS -- but their anonymity was completely unnecessary). Certainly, in dealing with me, it's not necessary.
ReplyDeleteWe have an internal e-mail discussion list that can host some pretty open conversations some times. The former Gannett employees in our company have been pretty surprised at how open it is (though, frankly, it's not as open as I think it should be -- too many people are still too intimidated).
I think it's important for people to put their opinions out there -- especially as it pertains to our strategies and tactics ... if people don't voice their concerns or objections, we have no chance to address those issues and provide an alternative POV and correct misinformation, or LEARN from what smart people think about some of the things we're doing, good or bad.
But, hey, GateHouse is just a down market company, right Jim? :-)
Just curious, Howard, have you ever strongly criticized a current employer in a public forum? Examples, please.
ReplyDeleteHoward@8:47 Oh, snap!
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't with asking newsrooms to more with less -- that's just reality
ReplyDeleteIs it really? It may be at some titles, but we've increased profits massively over the past three years thanks, in part, to some massive cutbacks. Does that leave us better equipped for a digital future? Hardly.
The challenge newspapers face is life-or-death, and print owners pretending that the transistion can be made without any investment are deluding themselves. Do more with at least what you have just now should be the reality.
(it's damn hard to shake the shackles of print when print is still the core revenue)
Why, yes, it is. Especially when a valid business model has yet to present itself. News generation is expensive. Exclusive content even more so. But that's all we have to offer online, so a business model than can support an expensive newsroom (without print subsidy) is still wanting.
When you combine the facts that publishers are cutting core staff to pay for online *and* there is no proven business model yet for online newspapers ... is it any wonder that there is resistance to their "plans"?
Of course there are many nice things that newspapers can do online, innovative websites, intriguing content aggregation. Do any of them make serious, print-equivalent money? No.
"...think of the example your setting for any non-journalists who come across this thread"
ReplyDeletePlease...won't somebody think of the uncouth and uneducated non-journalists?? I don't appreciate the underlying statement that non-journalists look to the journalists' postings as examples on how to behave properly online. It's the "we are journalists; therefore we are smarter than you and will choose what news you are exposed to" philosophy that has driven so many people away from the product we all have in common.
The Gannett papers had a hell of a lot of talent working on their websites before the sites became the sole property of newsrooms, mostly due to the implementation of the Information Center. Now sites are run by newsroom staffers who previously had very little exposure to the online culture and the brand new software installations lack the functionality that even a basic PHPbb site has. How is that not a large step backward?
@michael
ReplyDeleteIncreased profits massively? What paper? What town? On Mars?
Nationally, recruitment advertising has gone from an $8 billion business to just a $4 billion business in just a few years. All classified categories are down 6 to 7 percent in revenue over the past year. Circulation losses are accelerating at metro papers. Even your core older readers are switching to online (seniors often have the time and money to invest in learning online with a dedication and verve mid-career family people don't). Survey after survey show that more people get their news online now than in print. National retail is down. In bigger markets, local retail is down.
All that revenue is being spread out and diffused by the Internet.
The trends are not good for newspapers.
If you're not taking the Internet seriously in your newsroom, than you're being foolish.
It won't take many more years of those like the last few to put many US metro and mid-sized papers out of business.
Saving your newspaper isn't just the job of your publisher or your corporate executives, it's your job. This is an all hands effort, and one of the great things about the Info Center is it makes it possible for everyone in a newsroom to get involved.
Beyond that, doing the things that need to be done to save newspapers isn't just smart for your current employer, learning what you need to learn is good for your career, because like it or not, your future career is either online or at Wal-Mart.
So don't complain about your employer not giving you the time or resources to learn and try new things. You're responsible for your career.
Yes, you've got to keep doing your best to put out a good print product, but you should be doing everything you can to put out a web product that rocks.
Most of the innovations that fed into the Info Center were tried first at individual Gannett papers by people who didn't sit around waiting for a directive to try something new. They just did it.
Publishers aren't cutting staff to pay for online. That's bunk. If not for online revenue, there would be more staff cuts at most papers, because online is the only bright spot for revenue growth at most newspapers. Long ago, online started paying for itself at most newspapers. In fact, one of my criticisms of newspaper companies is that not enough of online revenue was reinvested in online products (and remains a problem today, but now with overall revenue dropping so fast, there are few alternatives).
As to criticizing a current (or even former) employer publicly -- I wouldn't do it, either by name or anonymously. By name would be foolish; anonymously would be unethical. Attacking people anonymously is in no way justifiable. Either put your name on it or keep your thoughts to yourself. Those are the only honorable options.
Now, if you have honest criticism of policy, procedures, strategy, etc. That's different. Putting your name on it is good, but if the substance of your statements are constructive and not personal, then anonymous is much less bothersome.
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance your position with reason (whether you user your name or not), and make such attacks anonymously is in no way justifiable.
Howard,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to work for Gannett as much as it appears why don't you just call your good friend, Jennifer Carroll, and get on with it. Perhaps then we can stop having to read your babble.
Perhaps Howard is jockeying for a position at Gannett. Have you seen the Gatehouse stock? Turns out, it's going the way of Journal Register, another downmarket publisher. Personally, I would want out of there, too, only to land in a place where I was guaranteed a golden parachute if you know the right person in the corporate office.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Publishers aren't cutting staff to pay for online. That's bunk."
That's absurd. Of course that's not the case at Gatehouse. Your daily web sites are awful -- http://www.gatehousemedia.com/publications/ -- and there is no demand by your company to post breaking news constantly. Obviously there are no quotas.
But let's say Gatehouse decided one day to ramp up its online production. Every reporter had to post at least 10 updates a day online. How would you swing that? How would your online staff handle that? How would you pay for it, at a time when your company is going down the tubes -- http://tinyurl.com/324u9v?
How would that fare with getting out the newspaper every day? Do you think your company would cut staff at a time like that? Gannett did that. They cut their best reporters, and yes, despite your ignorance, they used that money to beef up the company's websites with blogs. Mommy blogs. Green blogs. Community blogs. Look what's happening now.
You think blogs are the answer? You're dreaming. Blogs haven't worked at Gannett. It's not going to work at Gatehouse. This is not innovation. It's already an old way of thinking.
Howard wrote at 5:50: "Saving your newspaper isn't just the job of your publisher or your corporate executives, it's your job. This is an all hands effort, and one of the great things about the Info Center is it makes it possible for everyone in a newsroom to get involved."
ReplyDeleteAt USA Today, I was one of the paper's early bloggers, starting in April 2006. And I really took to it. I blogged every day, on weekends -- even on vacations. I got good feedback from my immediate editors. But the top brass? The only feedback I got was mostly an occasional scolding for not getting permission to try new things. (I'll never forget the lengthy e-mail, taking me to task for embedding YouTube videos on the blog. The nerve of me!)
Then there was the time I offered to teach myself to shoot, edit and post my own videos. I offered to use my own equipment and do it on my own time. The response? Virtually no enthusiasm -- and a suggestion that a group of other editors might study the idea. (They loved committees at USA Today.)
Here's what should have happened. Editors should have rejoiced that I was trying to be creative and enterprising. They should have told me to try it all, and come back with more ideas for the rest of the staff. Instead, I was overwhelmed by the bureaucracy.
In retrospect, I should have just gone ahead and done what I knew was the right thing, and told the senior editors to go screw themselves. They were slowing down innovation -- not advancing it.
But I was by then tired (20 years in Gannett of pushing a rock, then a boulder, up the hill had taken its toll). So I did what I thought was the right thing: Took a buyout being pressed on me by management, and left. I've always thought that if you no longer support management, you should step aside and make room for someone who does.
My point, Howard: Gannett has become a mammoth bureaucracy, weighed down by thousands of managers desperate to justify their jobs and paychecks. Yes, as you said, it was my job, too, to save the newspaper. Unfortunately, management kept getting in the way.
Perhaps some will enjoy reading this item from Gawker about anonymous posts.
ReplyDeletehttp://gawker.com/368912/who-are-you-people-and-why-are-you-so-mad
...he/she says with an anonymous post.
ReplyDelete@Howard
ReplyDeleteIncreased profits massively? What paper? What town? On Mars?
No, in the UK. I don't wish to be more specific, as I'm not comfortable speaking in more precise terms about internal numbers.
I agree with you however, that the trends are not good for newspapers. We are not making these extra profits by increased circulation or extra advertising revenue: we are, in the finest Gannet tradition, making them by wave after wave of redundancies - each one of which leaves us in a poorer position to meet the online challenge.
So don't complain about your employer not giving you the time or resources to learn and try new things. You're responsible for your career.
I don't know if this was aimed at me, but it somewhat misses the point. I'm not complaining that we're under-resourced here. A reasonable, although ineptly handled, amount of investment is being made in online at my paper.
But the problem is that there is no business model for online papers. Nothing that works.
Long ago, online started paying for itself at most newspapers.
Do you have any citations for this claim at all? In my experience, most online sites are said to be paying for themselves only when the cost of "content" generation is factored out. A newsroom is an expensive place to run. I've yet to see a single title's website that would wash its face without print revenue. There isn't a single one in the UK, despite us being home to such high profile sites as Guardian Unlimited.
Until it can be proven to newsrooms that there's more than wishful thinking up ahead, it's hard to get them on side.
My point, Howard: Gannett has become a mammoth bureaucracy, weighed down by thousands of managers desperate to justify their jobs and paychecks.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's it! I can only admire a person telling as it truly is. How many of these directors, managers, VPs, SVPs are on the floors of the Death Star. In comparison to the working stiffs - I guess everybody would groan if they knew the real numbers. And now everybody knows where the real money is buried.........