5 Comments

Summary:

Author and media consultant Jeff Jarvis has come up with a breakdown of what he calls some “hard economic lessons for news,” and it makes for somewhat gloomy reading indeed. That said, however, there are some glimmers of hope amid the murk and despair.

There’s no shortage of bad news out there for traditional media outlets. Continued circulation declines and advertising revenue shortfalls are producing a widening financial chasm that even paywall revenue for leading brands like The New York Times  can’t hope to bridge. Do we need another litany of the ways in which media is changing and how traditional publishers are doomed? Regardless, media consultant and author Jeff Jarvis has come up with a breakdown of what he calls “hard economic lessons for news,” and it makes for somewhat gloomy reading. That said, however, there are some glimmers of hope amid the despair.

“Doing Good” Doesn’t Pay

Jarvis sets out to disabuse existing media players of some of the myths and rationalizations they have for why people should pay them for their content. For example, he says:

“Should” is not a business model. You can say that people “should” pay for your product but they will only if they find value in it.

and later adds:

Virtue is not a business model. Just because you do good does not mean you deserve to be paid for it.

At the risk of putting words in Jarvis’s mouth, this sounds very much like some of the reasons The New York Times and other newspapers (such as Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London) have given for implementing pay walls around their content. Their argument is that they provide a valuable public service, and therefore people should pay for it — not because they want to, but because it’s the right thing to do.

As Jarvis notes, neither of these arguments — which both rely, to a degree, on making people feel guilty — is going to create a valid business model for news. Even if New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller would like people to feel bad about reading aggregated snippets of its stories at The Huffington Post, that doesn’t mean that they are going to do so.

So what about nonprofit or other models? These aren’t going to work for most outlets, says Jarvis:

  • Begging is not a business model. It’s lazy to think that foundations and contributions can solve news’ problems. There isn’t enough money there.
  • There is no free lunch. Government money comes with strings.
  • No one cares what you spent. Arguing that news costs a lot is irrelevant to the market.

That’s not all. Jarvis goes on to detail all the “reality checks” newspapers and other publishers need to grapple with as they search for ways to survive. By the end of the list, any self-respecting newspaper publisher or editor could be forgiven for wanting to simply turn out the lights and shut down the presses.

Think — and Act — Local

So where are the rays of hope? Local ad sales is one, says Jarvis: Newspapers could become the broker between advertisers on a community level who aren’t taking advantage of the web, and services such as Groupon (although Jarvis doesn’t specifically mention them), Google Place pages and Facebook deals. This is one reason why I, and others, have wondered why it took so long for newspapers to try to compete with Groupon by appealing to advertisers who want to reach readers in new ways. Jarvis also mentions there is “growth to be found in networks,” although it’s not clear how that would help finance the news. (To be fair, Jarvis says his post is a work in progress.)

Jarvis could be criticized for adding to the litany of despair in the media industry, but his list is the culmination of several years’ worth of work trying to come up with new business models for the news industry — both as a consultant and advisor to newspapers such as Canada’s Postmedia and as a professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. Jarvis helped coordinate a New Business Models for News summit in Aspen, Colo. in 2009, and followed that up with presentations on some of the models that were featured at the summit, including one embedded below.

Jeff Jarvis on New Business Models for News 2009 from CUNY Grad School of Journalism on Vimeo.

In a nutshell, Jarvis proposes that new business models can emerge when existing players reduce their costs through outsourcing (and crowdsourcing), focus on the value they can add instead of just reporting what has already been reported — which he calls “do what you do best and link to the rest” — and use social media and related services such as Twitter and Facebook to create a distributed news network. (For more of his thoughts, check out this Slideshare presentation from 2008.) Many of his ideas are already being put to the test by the Journal-Register Co., which CEO John Paton has turned into a “digital first” news organization, as I described in a recent post.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user George Kelly

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. I’m wondering what implications this research holds for reporters, especially with the suggestion to outsource and crowdsource as a cost-cutting measure. Is the hope of working for one publication unfeasible for journalists?

    This brings up further questions: I mean, with most publications wanting a complete and total lockdown when it comes to the rights of the work you produce, how are you supposed to be able to sell it to multiple publications? If publications aren’t prepared to pay you enough to justify your “exclusive” article (along with the research that goes along with it), won’t the quality of articles go down as a result?

    Things to ponder, I suppose. As an upcoming j-grad, this scares the b’Jesus out of me.

    1. Those are good questions, Matt — I wish I knew the answers. All I know is that good writing and smart analysis should always have value, and theoretically may have even more than it used to, since the supply of the opposite seems to be increasing :-)

    2. Not to mention the editor – reporter relationship.

      As to: add instead of just reporting what has already been reported — which he calls “do what you do best and link to the rest”

      Every national or world story should have a sidebar amplifying how the story affects local readers, individuals and businesses.

  2. “Local” is much less important in Europe than it is in the US. In many countries of Europe, “local” simply isn’t big enough to base a business model on. It may happen that “local” is only as big in the US.

    I,ve been following Jeff Jarvis ideas for a long time and agree with most of them. But I still think that, in order to survive with a similar social role as today, media companies need something more radical. It still may not be to late to change the foundaitons of the digital business. We need a web that is intelligent enough to value the bits and pieces of information that flow through it. SmartMedia is the business model I’m proposing. Here’s what its all about: http://josemoreno.posterous.com/a-new-business-model-for-the-media

  3. Just to add this fact: precisely today The Guardian announced it would be dropping its experiments is local reporting in Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh because they are “unsustainable”: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-guardian-cans-its-unsustainable-local-experiment/

Comments have been disabled for this post