Friday, April 19, 2013

A reader asks: 'What about the Butterfly Project?'

Contrary to recent speculation here on Gannett Blog, the so-called Butterfly Project is not another early retirement buyout program to reduce payroll spending.

Instead, it's an editorial content initiative that's been under discussion since approximately last summer, according to a reader who has been briefed on the plans. If it gets a final OK -- and I suspect it will -- Butterfly will mean the U.S. community dailies will use even more USA Today stories, photographs, video and other content than they already do now.

Pressed to its logical conclusion, the project could mean Gannett might eliminate most if not all content from the Associated Press and other outside wire services. At a minimum, it will concentrate even more editorial authority at Corporate's headquarters in McLean, Va., at the expense of the company's historic deference to local control.

The head of Corporate's News Department, Kate Marymont, outlined Butterfly during a presentation to publishers on April 3. Their meeting in McLean came a week after she and USAT Editor in Chief David Callaway announced a key management appointment for the nascent global News Desk. That operation, based in USAT's newsroom, will collect, edit and redistribute editorial content from all of Gannett's U.S. media sites, including broadcasting.

Led by new Executive Editor Beryl Love, most recently the senior news executive at the Reno Gazette-Journal, the desk is to be up and running sometime this summer. Love starts next month.

Echoes of ContentOne
The community dailies have been using USAT content virtually since the paper was launched in 1982. In more recent years, that content has been produced by USAT editors in the form of a single nation-world news page using USAT's typeface and published as a page by most if not all the dailies in place of what had been prepared at the community level. Butterfly will extend that even more.

Butterfly and the News Desk are successors to ContentOne, which was in turn a successor to the original Gannett News Service. Together, they are part of a broader effort by Corporate to maximize efficiencies in how editorial matter is produced and distributed in order to wring out costs.

While those have been underway for many years, they were significantly ramped up with the institution of the Design Studio hubs launched at five sites starting in the summer of 2010. They design and produce all newspaper pages for virtually all the 81 U.S. community dailies, not including USAT. They have been one of the most ambitious such consolidation projects across the industry.

To be sure, Butterfly and the News Desk aren't guaranteed winners. In late 2008, then-CEO Craig Dubow told a group of Wall Street analysts that ContentOne would "upend" the industry's traditional thinking about content distribution.

Dubow said it would "allow us to develop and gather information much more efficiently by eliminating duplication and allowing our local entities to focus on what's important -- a deep, rich local report. It is the logical next step from our local Information Center initiatives, creating a national head to the local content gathering bodies."

But well less than three years later, ContentOne was scuttled with the abrupt retirement of the vice president in charge, Tara Connell. What remained in May 2011 was then folded into USAT, where its future remained cloudy until Love's promotion last month.

41 comments:

  1. With this initiative, the name "McPaper" truly will fit the community dailies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A reader asked me to post the following:

    So USAT will provide a robust report? State capitol coverage? Coverage updated throughout the news cycle? Coverage seven days a week?

    Do they have any idea how much AP coverage fills inside pages?

    So this would be a clear reason for someone not to pay for both USAT and their local paper?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim has reported Butterfly completely accurately. Everything true, and matches what we heard at the Marymont meeting.

      The debate now is how big a presence USA Today will have in local papers: Just adding pages or inserting a separate section.

      We hear there is even talk of a Sunday USA Today insert.

      Will butterfly fly? My guess is yes, but greatly scaled down.

      Delete
  3. The idea can't do anything but degrade the local publications with stories, graphics and photos from beltway types who have no handle on what rings with readers in other areas. As many neighbors and subscribers tell me, if they want u.s.a. today stories, graphics and photos, they'd buy it.
    Kate has a track record of promoting stuff in a big way and then it dies a slow death. She was hailed for her mojo idea in Fort Myers, but that thing collapsed pretty quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's not just hang this on Kate. Kramer is a major proponent of this idea. Last summer he was saying he thought USAT could possibly even count all of the USCP circulation as part of USAT circulation. Obviously not a great grasp of ABC rules. But hey, they hired him to think outside the box, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. USA Today's challenge in delivering a competent national and world report stems from its thin system of full-time staff news bureaus in major cities. In the U.S., I believe the paper has bureaus in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Very recently, I hear the paper reopened a bureau in London.

    But what about the following U.S. cities? Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Denver and Chicago.

    And worldwide, what about (to name a relative handful)? Athens, Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Cairo, Jerusalem, Johannesburg, Madrid, Mexico City, Moscow, Paris, Rome, Sao Paulo, Sydney, Tokyo, and Toronto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Consider sports media. All the major US networks - and I assume the same goes around the globe - share their information. A credit is given for the content originator. Simple as that.

      You want local coverage across the nation, across the planet? Cut out the middleman (AP, Reuters, etc). Why shouldn't a newspaper do what its consumers already do? Seek out the local source. Give a credit for print or video. Link to the original content online.

      All that's required is agreement to share. Sports media figured that out a couple decades ago. Shouldn't be too hard for print to realize that The Arizona Republic running content from The Denver Post doesn't hurt Denver.

      Delete
  6. Butterfly. What a great name for such a lightweight operation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. According to Jim:

    "At a minimum, it will concentrate even more editorial authority at Corporate's headquarters in McLean, Va., at the expense of the company's historic deference to local control."

    Upon what evidence do you draw that conclusion? Or is it just your opinion? Local news is still generated locally. Sounds to me like this will just replace AP, a good idea that should require USAT do more.

    Seems like you are just doing your usual job of stiing the pot for a little controversy and page clicks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If more content is coming from USAT, that concentrates more power at Corporate, because that's where USAT is based -- unless you're suggesting USAT is being moved to a new location.

      Delete
    2. So who's going to give us little Wisconsin newspapers stories from Madison, our state capitol? If not AP, it sure as fuck won't be USA Today.

      Delete
    3. Usa Today just lost about 15 reporters in the buyouts. Of course, i am using reporter liberally. But how do you cut staff while churning out more content? There is a lot of deadwood at Usat that no one can light a fire under.

      Delete
  8. So, if they invested the AP wire cost savings in staffing up more national and international bureaus the core USA TODAY product could improve and the quality of the content provided to USCP sites could improve as well.

    I don't know if that is part of the plan or not, but I would rather pay our people than AP if we can generate good content for the locals and improve USA TODAY's ability to produce a great product.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But if the AP savings were "reinvested" in USAT national and international bureaus, there wouldn't be any savings then, would there? I don't think that's the plan.

      Delete
  9. Gotcha. Four overworked young reporters tweeting their thumbs off and eight overpaid and over-egoed senior editors per paper, filled with USAT content.

    Forget the newspapers anyway. We know the company put those on hospice care as of four plus years ago. But anything on these websites any local reader would actually want to see, much less pay for? Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Local newspaper readers could care less about USA TODAY and USA TODAY content, especially in the small markets that are the bulk of Gannett's footprint. Unless it's a major story that everyone is talking about (I.e. Boston bombings), people will not want to see USA TODAY and it's wonderfully designed blue dot invade their hometown newspaper. They will feel like they are getting less local news and more of what's not relevant to them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Look for broadcasting outlets to drop CNN before AP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds to me like Gannett is about to lay off thousands of reporters who write local news. Local news editors will also go.
      The goal of Gannett is to fill its papers and websites with USA Today crap. Don't know how smart that is. Again, can the USA Today hack writers improve on the articles generated by the Associated Press' proven professionals? Doubtful, to say the least.

      Delete
  12. Jim what you've outlined is NOT PB. You've got it all wrong. You've gone down the wrong path. And by the way you are about to get scooped on a huge story. You can pooh pooh me but you will know I'm right in about 30 seconds

    ReplyDelete
  13. OK, 6:40, what IS Butterfly Project? As far as getting scooped on Big Al's death, who gives a whoop? Maybe they'll take his big bucks and plow it into two or three reporters.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 8:15 I'm not telling you. What I AM telling you is you are wrong. You're right or wrong. YOU are wrong

    ReplyDelete
  15. 6:40 is a troll. Jim's description of the Butterfly Project is amazingly accurate. Whether it flies, as someone said above, is another story.

    But injecting huge amounts of USA TODAY content into the community papers is indeed what is being prototyped. Enough to drop AP? That's the long-term goal, but might not be realistic. Yet.

    But like Jim or not, on this one he's dead on.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 9:38 Jim doesn't allow words like Troll. Unless of course it is used to defend him. My point above is you do not have the actual story. You have a small piece that you've utilized to speculate in wild directions. You spout this stuff likes its gospel. You are so smug. Keep working. You ain't got it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're correct about my ban on the word troll. But if I remove that comment, I'll have to remove yours, too.

      And I want to keep your comment in place, because it's a perfect example of a comment with zero credibility: "I know something that you don't know, but I'm not going to tell you."

      Delete
    2. And your blog thrives on that type of comment, Jim. It's good to see you finally admitting that type of post has no credibility.

      It's only taken four years for you to exhibit some growth. Good for you.

      Delete
    3. Oh snap Jimbo! It must hurt that all these big changes swirl around you and none of your "sources" give you a heads up anymore. That has to sting. He'll you got B slapped by an 80 something year old man a few years ago and you had a bodyguard. That must have been a looooong flight home to The Castro.

      Delete
  17. If Kate Marymont had a shred of integrity left in her, she would resign before further contributing to the demise of journalism at Gannett community papers and further tarnishing her own reputation.

    I knew Ms. Marymont when she was a wonderful newswoman. What happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money and greed happened. It is a familiar and sad story.

      Delete
    2. Oh please. She worked her ass off and received a promotion she earned. A promotion any one if you haters would step on your best friend to get. So back off you hypocrites

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  18. The description of this initiative is accurate. The sad thing is that this idea is just another in a line of re-circulated ideas from the 11th floor. As to it's merits: it will not succeed. Think about it. USA TODAY's penetration in Gannett's super small local markets is almost nothing. Most of the newspaper's circulation happens in large metropolitan markets across the country not in the bottom two-thirds of their list of local newspaper markets. Very few, if any, care about or read USA TODAY in places like Great Falls, MT, St. George UT, Lafayette Indiana or Louisiana. Therefore, when they see USA TODAY branded content inside of their local newspaper they will be completely turned off. They will feel like the 'national' USA TODAY is trying to run their personal hometown 'local' newspaper show. Let's be real, USA TODAY's brand may have been great and innovative back-in-the-day, but it aint no more (if I can use a little broken English here to make my point - no matter what any Gannett or USA TODAY mouthpiece says or how many times they try to "re-imagine" it. There are only so many times you can wash a pair of 30 year old sneakers. [If the New York Times had Gannett's assets and tried to do this, it will be a different story. I'm not saying they'd succeed, but they would certainly have an easier time trying because of it's brand - even if it's perceived as having a liberal slant.]

    And, to think they are going to try to merge USA TODAY content in print and in digital? Wow. That's going to be a double-slap in the face for people in those 15,000 circulation markets in Ohio and elsewhere. Further, Gannett is not getting boat loads of people signing up for their local digital subscription in the first place. They will taut how strong sign-ups are trending, but the trend is no where near expectations and it will most certainly flatten out because the pool of people interested in paying for stuff they can get for free is about the size the plastic pools you buy for your kids at Babies R Us.

    And, what evidence do they have that people will actually sign up for these digital subscriptions if USA TODAY content is in there anyway? I can't imagine there is enough solid and convincing evidence to support this decision. But, Gannett is about out of options in terms of how these local newspaper are staffed and the costs to keep them running profitably. Skilled professionals in journalism and the AP is not cheap. And, they are not going to re-hire all the people they've laid off and are not going to stop downsizing. So, I suppose the Project Butterfly will be the new world order in Gannett-land. It's going to be sad that it will not work, but what else are they got to try something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But is it certain that it will be branded USA Today content? Might it be called, for example, Burlington Free Press News Desk, in Vermont?

      Delete
  19. I don't know. That would be my assumption. The main thrust behind doing this is to leverage USA TODAY's great brand and great content. Why else would they do it? It may be something like - Burlington Free Press News Desk - powered by USA TODAY.

    And, that is where the problem lies. The content isn't especially "special" and that's partly because A). The brand isn't especially special, wanted, or needed in the life of someone in Burlington, Hattiesburg, or Newark OH (not just my opinion) and B). It's content anyone can get anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Readers in my market already notice the lack of local content and the increase in USAT branded information. As for us providing content to USAT, there's not much general/national interest news in my region unless it's a HUGE story or something within driving distance so USAT can dispatch one of our staff.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What's going to happen is that pages of USA Today content, branded as such with the paper's logo, will fill the inside wire pages of local newspapers. Designers will take the material from USAT and will plop it into the space above the ad stacks. Stories will be trimmed as needed and heads and cutlines rewritten to fit.

    Except for the USAT logo, a lot of that is going on now. The national wire desk in Des Moines is providing more of its news budget from USAT and less from the AP. They are under instructions to maximize use of USAT stories -- even when the AP story is clearly superior (has deeper reporting and better writing.) That is happening now and is a transition phase for the next step, which is Project Butterfly.

    ReplyDelete
  22. How will this increase readership and improve the communities where Gannett does business?

    ReplyDelete
  23. 12:32 AM here: Who says it will do either? And why would anyone believe them?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Beryl must have taken the Invisible Person Meds all senior editors apparently consume at the Palace. No one sees any of them actually doing any work or even in the newsrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Our site is loaded with a videos from USAT. There's a video bar that includes theirs as well as our meager local videos. Problem is the readers can't tell them apart. They get teased by the screen grab and headline, thinking it's a local story, then get stuck in a USAT ad loop before finally seeing the story isn't local or interesting. Worse, many see the video and THINK it's local, and then walk away believing the bit (usually an example of head-shaking news) happened here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get ready for even more of that kind of stuff when the new community newspaper website template starts rolling out this fall.

      Delete
  26. Not to be confused with another Butterfly Project: http://www.cuttingdepression.net/butterfly-project/

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.