Executive Editor Tom Callinan says The Cincinnati Enquirer is fed up with other media using the paper's stories, photos and other content for free. "We're no longer willing to idly watch our good efforts stolen,'' Callinan wrote in a column published yesterday. "In an attempt to track down such content parasites, the Enquirer and Cincinnati.com now employ technology that scours the media landscape for illegal use of our content. In recent weeks, we have sent warnings to several blogs, websites and radio stations."Have other Gannett newspapers taken this step? And what's the technology Callinan is talking about? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
[Image: today's paper, Newseum]
Jim:
ReplyDeleteThe column also notes that they will delay posting many live stories 24 hours, calling it First In Print. That sounds like a big change.
Have other Gannett papers made that move?
If not, I bet everyone will be watching.
First in print, last everywhere else. What a stupid idea.
ReplyDeleteIt's a step in an awkward direction.
ReplyDelete"First in Print" sounds like a stop-gap maneuver and doesn't at all sound like it reinforces the value of our content, as Callinan writes. Instead it places priority on a product, in this case, print. That's not a progressive move. The priority should be on the distribution -- getting the news out there in the best manner suitable to the story, rather than favoring any single product.
On the other hand, Sunday is the high-circulation day when newspapers showcase their best stories, but a very low-circulation day for online readership. Pushing back Sunday's online publication to Monday makes some sense; stories won't stale up the homepage while it waits for Monday when online online readership is highest for the week, giving better exposure for stories of significance.
But Callinan doesn't expect any significant increase in Sunday circulation. So why do it? It's protectionism, and it seems rather short-sighted.
If this was 2001 I'd love this move. As it is now, I don't understand the end game. No additional circulation, no additional revenue streams and no additional online views? The stories The Enquirer is holding back are solid enterprise stories. I just question how long they can keep them coming given limited staff resources. It's an understandable reaction but a strong business decision.
ReplyDeleteFirst in print has always been -- and remains to be -- a good model for in-depth, investigative pieces. I've never understood why papers rushed to put things like that on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteIn my market, I've seen our paper rush to post things only to have every local TV station do a variation of the story on the 11 p.m. news. For folks who don't live on the newspaper Web site, it sometimes made it look as if the TV station's broke the story, making the paper seem less valuable.
If you hold the story a day online and break it in print, there is no down side. The story still gets printed, only the newspaper can benefit from the full impact.
This wouldn't be true with a plane crash or any breaking news story, but I don't think that's what he's talking about. I think he's referring to the in-depth pieces that newspapers are still best at.
I'm not a Gannett fan, but I've long thought this is the best way to do things. If you want people to continue to buy the paper, you have to show them that there's actually some value. I'm glad to see somebody at least try it out.
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/contents/comments/tom_callinan_is_mad_as_hell_and_the_enquirer_wont_plagiarize_anymore/
ReplyDeleteThe primary takeaway from Callinan's column is not the First in Print campaign, which wasn't his idea (See Dennis Ryerson's Sunday column in the Indy Star). It's the attack-the-blog stance he takes. Callinan lays out a blanket allegation that "content parasites" are stealing Enquirer content, yet he doesn't identify the offenders or give any specific examples, which has the net effect of making ALL other information outlets in Cincinnati look like petty thieves. For the full story, go to www.cincinnatibeacon.com.
ReplyDeleteSpringfield MO started that "First in Print" crap this past Sunday also. Doesn't seem to me to be smart marketing strategy to give on-line readers even less reason to check your website. I doubt advertisers are pleased.
ReplyDelete6:12 -- I disagree. It is smart because the Web sites don't make money. I don't know why it took everyone so long to finally admit to this. The more we rely on Web sites that are completely dependent on print reporting, yet can't come close to covering the costs of print newsgathering, the more likely it is that we'll get fired.
ReplyDeletePrint first makes complete sense because it encourages people to subscribe to the paper, and that is a profit center. Gannett has been trying to build Web traffic so it can convince Wall Street that it has a future. Trouble is, nobody knows how to turn that traffic into money.
It doesn't matter if we let online readers down because they don't pay for the product. Aside from that, this policy doesn't even let them down. They'll still get the stories, they'll just get them at the same time they appear in the paper.
There is no reason to rush an investigative or enterprise piece to print -- online or otherwise -- unless you think a competitor is going to beat you to the story. And how many TV and radio stations are doing that kind of work these days? Print first is a win-win, as long as they select the stories carefully.
Also, it sounds like we can all look forward to this. You don't get three Gannett editors simultaneously taking a brave new stance on their own. Clearly, they've been given marching orders from corporate. And I hate to say it but they got this one right.
"First in Print" This is a joke and the reason why USCP is a failure. There is no consistency and lunatics like Callihan are hanging onto a dying medium.
ReplyDeletePRINT IS DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!
They've been telling us since 2006 to post our content on the Web first, and now they're telling us we're foolish and short-sighted. nice.
ReplyDeleteReporters have been screaming about this for decades - specifically about hearing stories read verbatim on the radio. So, it's about time that the paper took a harder stance to protect its content. Though getting new subscribers based on them being able to see a handful of enterprise stories "first" is a dubious strategy. Most of the enterprise is pretty obvious, late to the table, not deep enough and rarely followed up on.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Callinan should be careful about what he is wishing for. The Enquirer newsroom is dotted with TVs so that the staff can monitor breaking news they haven't yet heard about. Each editor has a TV in his or her office, too. There usually is someone stationed at the main bank of TVs to take notes about stories the paper doesn't have during ALL the daily broadcasts throughout the day - and overnight. Perhaps the local TV stations ought to start sending letters from their lawyers about "stolen" content.
The paper also monitors the web sites of local competition - the meager resources that still exist, such as the fairly aggressive "Business Courier" and the arts-heavy "City Beat" - for stories. Now what if they began calling out the paper for the myriad stories it got thanks to them? Fair is fair.
And although it is not lifting stories - the paper abounds with bylines on press releases, especially in the features department - hardly "original" material.
In my local market, after years of rip & read by radio, the local NPR affiliate has finally begun crediting the originating newspapers on stories. But TV and radio don't have to credit the papers when a story is picked up by the AP's broadcast wire. There's a huge difference.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's also a difference between outright stealing content and getting beaten on a story. If you take the basic facts of my story and regurgitate them without doing any reporting of your own, that's not kosher. But if you go out and talk to people and re-report the story that I whupped you on, maybe even advancing it, that's cool. And no, I don't have to acknowledge that you got it first.
Personally, I love the hypocritical bloggers who spend their time bashing the "MSM" and how local reporters constantly miss the real stories, but then fill up their posts quoting our copy. That's nice, fellas.
I've said it before on this site (but got bashed for it,) now I'm saying it again. Sooner or later all news on the web will be pay-per-view or something similar. There's no easy way to make that happen right now. But it's only a matter of time and technology. Free online news will eventually be a thing of the past. Denizens of "If-I-have-to-pay-for-it-then-to-heck-with-it City" You've been warned!
ReplyDelete3:50 -- I agree with you, but until that day arrives there is no overriding reason for papers to give their content away free of charge. Online advertisements don't come close to paying for the content on Gannett Web sites, so it doesn't matter how many people read the stories.
ReplyDelete2:55: "But if you go out and talk to people and re-report the story that I whupped you on, maybe even advancing it, that's cool. And no, I don't have to acknowledge that you got it first."
ReplyDeleteThat's a double standard if ever there was one. While breaking news stories such as fires, car wrecks, etc. are open game, there are other stories that the competition gets via strong source development and steadfast beat reporting that warrant acknowledging. Otherwise, you're behaving as badly as those you rail against - even if you are not "ripping and reading."
There is nothing wrong with saying that something was reported first elsewhere. If anything, it's classy.
9:39 am: Agreed. In addition to being classy, an acknowledgement also answers a question some readers may have: Didn't I already read this somewhere?
ReplyDeleteIs it honorable for a financial parasite (Gannett) to attack others for being a content parasite? And which action is worse? I would argue that the small-time blogger who is stealing stories from the mighty corporation is doing less of a disservice to the community than the giant business that dominates the media landscape yet refuses to write stories for the general population (it's all about target audiences, you know) and sends all its profits back to the mothership so it can deliver bonuses to top execs while laying off reporters, sales people and press operators in the city that supplied the revenue. Almost makes those content parasites sound noble, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteHICK TOWN
ReplyDeleteCinci's a one-horse town. BFD.
Well, that added a lot to the conversation. Thanks.
ReplyDelete"First in Print" - are you kidding?
ReplyDeleteWhen, oh when, will the last of these aging baby boomers get the fuck out?