7 Comments

Summary:

The 97-page internal report on what the New York Times needs to do online contains many things of value, but it glosses over one important point: the way the NYT does journalism has to change, not just how it is promoted or displayed

NYT newspapers
photo: Getty Images / Mario Tama

A shockwave hit the media industry in May, when an internal “innovation report” prepared for New York Times executives leaked to BuzzFeed. The report makes for fascinating reading, in part because it is a snapshot of a massive media entity that is caught in the throes of wrenching change, unsure how to proceed. But while it contained many things of value, it glossed over one of the most important factors for the paper’s success — and that is whether the content itself, the journalism that the New York Times produces, needs to change.

This question came up recently in a post by Thomas Baekdal, an author and media analyst. In it, Baekdal made the point that the “quality journalism” the innovation report continually refers to — the bedrock, foundational value of the New York Times — is never questioned. In other words, it is assumed that the journalism itself is fine as is, and all that needs to happen is that the paper has to do a better job of marketing it and engaging with readers around it. But is that true? Baekdal says:

“This is something I hear from every single newspaper that I talk with. They are saying the same thing, which is that their journalistic work is top of the line and amazing. The problem is ‘only’ with the secondary thing of how it is presented to the reader. And we have been hearing this for the past five to ten years, and yet the problem still remains. There is a complete and total blind spot in the newspaper industry that part of the problem is also the journalism itself.”

Not just what kind of journalism, but how

Baekdal’s point isn’t that the New York Times produces bad or low-quality content, but just that the paper should be questioning how it reports and writes that content, and whether it meets the needs of the market — just as it is questioning whether its current business model and/or industrialized printing process meets the needs of the market. It’s not a trivial question, but it doesn’t really appear anywhere in the innovation report, at least not in any depth.

New York Times innovation report

This argument got some support this week from an interesting participant: Martin Nisenholtz, the former head of digital operations for the Times — the man who not only started the paper’s website in 1996, but later drove the acquisition of About.com and other innovative efforts on the digital side. In a blog post, Nisenholtz defended Baekdal, and also provided a fascinating glimpse into what could have been an alternate future for the New York Times.

Nisenholtz, now a consultant and journalism professor, describes an interview that Henry Blodget gave to the creators of the Digital Riptide project (a group that included Nisenholtz). The former NYT executive said that one of the things he liked the most about Blodget’s interview was how optimistic he was about the future of journalism in the digital age — in large part because there is so much more of it than ever before, and much of it is of fairly high quality:

“We are awash in news from an almost infinite number of global sources, much of it of very high quality. For this reason, news providers can no longer force their readers to “eat spinach.” Instead, they need to work hard to entice readers with relevant and interesting content, structured for easy access. In a world of almost unlimited choice, the reader is king.”

The Times is no longer alone

As Nisenholtz suggests, that reality is the primary challenge the New York Times is facing: not just that it has to de-emphasize print and adapt to digital, or do a better job of engaging with readers around its content (although it very much has to do all of those things) but that it has to somehow grapple with the fact that it is no longer one of a privileged few — a tiny number of exalted media and journalism producers with a one-way pipe directly into the homes of readers, and therefore a large share of a kind of information oligopoly.

New York Times building logo, photo by Rani Molla

New York Times building logo, photo by Rani Molla

Now, the Times is just one player in a vast and differentiated media landscape — one that makes the previous era look like the Pleistocene Age. Not only does every traditional publisher now have access to the exact same market that the NYT does, but there are a host of new and more nimble players with the same access: dedicated news apps like Circa or Yahoo’s news digest, mobile readers like Flipboard and Zite, and digital-only publishers like BuzzFeed and more recent entrants such as Vox. Many of them do journalism in a completely different way. Nisenholtz’s view from 20 years ago is even more appropriate now:

“My feeling at that time (and today) was that ‘quality’ was – in large part – a function of the user experience, and that – particularly in the dial-up world of the mid-90s – Yahoo was doing that best for exactly the reasons that Baekdal outlines. Putting a newspaper on the web seemed very limiting.”

The competing product that is good enough

Many of those who work at the New York Times (and other legacy media organizations) no doubt console themselves by thinking that while their newer, digital-only competitors may be more technologically savvy, their product — i.e., their journalism — is inferior. And that may even be true in some cases. But as any student of disruption theory knows, the most dangerous competitor isn’t the one whose product is better than yours, it’s the one whose product is good enough.

tigers attacking

For many readers — especially those who only want to get a brief update about what is happening in the world, or who want news that is tailored to them in some way, or news that has more of a point of view — will likely look to other outlets, even if the objective “quality” of the Times‘ journalism is arguably better. This is the point I think Baekdal is making when he says that newspapers like the Times take more of a supermarket approach to journalism than their competitors. The market’s needs have changed, and it’s not clear whether the Times can change quickly enough to meet them (although apps like NYTNow and features like The Upshot are interesting experiments, and the Times deserves credit for trying them).

In addition to his thoughts on the state of digital media, Nisenholtz also describes a fascinating moment 20 years ago that could have changed the face of online media: as he describes it, when his digital team asked for financial resources to start the website, he also asked for a small sum to finance a “skunk works” research lab to experiment with the web — but his request was ultimately denied. At one point, Nisenholtz says, one member of the team even suggested that the Times should buy Yahoo (he says “we would probably have screwed it up,” but I’m not sure he could have done a worse job than a series of a Yahoo CEOs have).

Imagine what might have happened if the Times had started that lab when the web was young — what innovations could it have developed? What new directions could it have found for all that high-quality journalism? And now, the paper struggles to catch up to a market for digital news that may be permanently out of reach.

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Getty Images / Mario Tama, as well as Rani Molla and Flickr user Abysim

  1. steve from virginia Saturday, June 21, 2014

    New York Times (and Washington Post and the TV networks) are compromised, as such they are irrelevant.

    Times = long, detailed, lavish articles about designer clothes, luxury vacations and expensive housing, automobiles and celebrities; endless fawning over tycoons and what they want and do; over how wonderful the tycoons are and how everyone wants to be one. How easy credit (for the tycoons) will solve everything … more advert-news articles about luxury housing, clothes, vacations, cars. Good grief.

    NY Time supported the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan just like it supported Dick Nixon and the US war efforts in Vietnam. The Times has let the current feckless administration bully them; they never dare criticize Washington or the government’s owners on Wall Street. Whistleblowers are crushed and the Times says nothing …

    Reporting … what reporting? If the Times or its sponsors don’t like a subject it simply isn’t mentioned: peak oil, resource depletion, human- and machine overpopulation, the wave of uprisings around the world including in Europe, creeping credit-system insolvency, the ongoing mass extinction of increasing percentage of non-human life. Outside, unpleasant reality is taking place; the Times is filled with ski holidays, Midtown penthouses and reviews of the latest from Jaguar.

    The Times’ opinion writers are screaming, steaming idiots: Brooks does not deserve to write for a shopper much less a major metropolitan newspaper, Friedman is a bought-and-paid-for US intelligence service hack, Krugman is unable to count, add or subtract, Dowd is simply a bad writer. With content is reduced to adverts, it makes no difference whether the Ol’ Lady has an online presence or not.

    Reality has passed NY Times by, we are in the post-petroleum world right now with all its attendant consequences. Most of these are going to be very unpleasant. Times is good for what is playing on Broadway, not much else.

    Reply Share
    1. Mark Isenberg Sunday, June 22, 2014

      Gee,Steve,does the Washington Post under Mr. Bezos get a pass because it had a higher stock price in the Graham era or is it too just another digital dinosaur of the inked stained past? Not everyone is thinking like you that major media can’t adapt.There are still good,important writers like Nick Kristoff and C.J.Chivers,etc. at the Times. You may think Ms.Dowd is a bad writer but she has the pulse of the Clintons and that will be important as she strolls toward the White House in 2016. Post-Petroleum world,huh? Not quite yet. And the Times theatre critics are legendary for not liking much on Broadway so those of us who still like the Times for certain writers,etc. are not too concerend about your opinions,either.

      Reply Share
  2. Reblogged this on Bill Bennett and commented:
    Mathew Ingram at GigaOm makes a good point about the missing ingredient when news publishers attempt to innovate. They all talk about how they maintain ‘quality editorial’ but this is often little more than paying lip service to the idea.
    I saw this up front when Fairfax purchased IDG New Zealand. Managers would constantly talk of a commitment to quality journalism, while simultaniously cutting budgets tighter and tighter then pressuring editors and publishers like myself to take short cuts.

    Reply Share
  3. This is great stuff and reflects the “quality” problem all publishers have had to deal with. Problem for NYT is current paying readers still want the NYT experience as it was in print. Preserving that revenue stream while trying to innovate to attract new sources of revenue is immensely difficult.

    Reply Share
  4. Jesus, what a load of tripe.

    Reply Share
  5. My God – Nisenholtz cites Blodget as the “spotter” for quality journalism ??? One need only look at the home page of “Business Insider” (which is neither “business” or “insider”) to qualify this former Wall Street criminal’s definition of “quality” “”journalism”” … needed doubl quotes for that last one …

    Reply Share
  6. THE ARTICLES MAKES INTERESTING READING AND NOW WE KNOW WHY NEW YORK TIMES IS SO POPULAR BECAUSE OF ITS OWN SELF AUDITING IN THE FIELD OF JOURNALISM .HOW WE WISH THE OTHER PRINT MEDIA WORLD OVER FOLLOW THE VIVID EXAMPLE,, GREAT INDEED

    Reply Share