Newspapers are doing it tougher in the US than Australia with many dropping circulation and ad revenue at alarming levels. We’re insulated here by a cost effective (for publishers) home delivery network, a strong national retail network and the natural delay of trends hitting our shores.  That said, newsagents should read Ted Leonsis’ 10 plan for reinventing the newspaper business.
I was first introduced to Ted ten or eleven years ago during a 3 year (part time) entrepreneurship program I undertook at MIT in Boston. The Birthing of Giants program was organised through Inc. magazine. The sessions were inspirational. My recollection is that ted Leonsis was a visionary thinker, still is. He helped shape the thinking of the class, to see beyond the challenge and through to the opportunity. If you read Ted’s blog post about reinventing newspapers you’ll see he has not changed – his proposals are bold and while others have suggested some before, his pitch is clear and compelling.
Leonsis’ ten point plan could apply to Australian newsagents. It is relevant to my post couple of days ago about why newsagents should buy borders. We will find our future by being bold and acting collectively. Every day we act alone and with our eyes focused on the next stp0e in front of us is a day lost.
Publishers have serious challenges in the US and, soon, here in Australia. They will develop solutions which suit them, as they should. At some point, the solutions they will pursue will shift in core focus from our channel. This is what we have to be ready for.
We need to be talking today about the relevance of newspapers to the newsagency of the future.
We need to be talking about the shingle itself. Is newsagent relevant?
In the words of some debatably wise people … #@$% NO.
At least I hope it isn’t relevant.
I see many good points here but I must say tht his point number 8 is one of the things that scares me silly these days. To make the ‘click throughs’ the key deliverable means to me that we would have a news media full of party boys with yellow glasses and not thoughtful, well researched articles that people NEED to read not WANT to read.
I think he would be better saying that editors are not passe, the distribution team is.
Brett – you must be kidding.
Your viewing media purely as societal mould as opposed to a product. Media can’t survive by delivering what people ‘need’ (your word, not mine) to read.
Whether you like it or not media is a product. It works on a supply and demand model (usually) just like any other product. Take of the rose coloured glasses because its that kind of thinking that will see many media fall from grace.
Jarryd,
I cant beleive you just wrote that.
Yes media is a product but it is not a chocolate egg, designed to be yummy for a second and then gone. It is a product on which, if I may be so bold, democracy lives.
Where do we hear about corruption in the population, where do we air our views on underage drinking; the media. If its all about what Paris Hilton is wearing this week then society goes nowhere.
I never said that the WANT to read bits have to go, all I said was that the article infers that the NEED to read bits were not important.
Ask yourself this question, what do you read in the press, politics, economy or who got pregnant this week? I suspect the answer is all of them.
To make the fluffy bits of the press the ‘key deliverable’ he does the media, and us, a disservice.
Brett,
I disagree. Some media is a chocolate egg as you put it. In fact id say a large part of it is.
If topics such as politics, the economy, the environment, etc are popular at the time then thats what will be given priority in search statistics – if not then they get bumpbed down the list.
The article doesn’t infer that the ‘need’ bits aren’t important – it doesn’t define media in terms of ‘want’ and ‘need’ to read. It simply says that publishers need to get smarter about search engine syndication – give the customers (those searching) what they want to read. You don’t take into account that many will want to read what you say they need to read.
Its not going to bring up Paris Hilton as the number one search result when someone is looking for media reports on the global economy. But if someone is loooking for Paris Hilton, and the publisher has an article on her, then they need to find ways of getting their article close to the top of the search results.
Think of it as competing for space in a reatil shop. Publishers may fight for space in the magazine pockets of their own niche category – but no newsagent is going to place their magazine in multiple unrelated categories no matter how much they believe people ‘need’ to read the publication.
We agree then to disagree.
You are saying that the readers will naturally gravitate to the stuff they need to read. I know that that is a rose coloured view if the world, in all its shallow glory.
No business analysis will tell you to sink a year of research into one article, as they did with Watergate. No accountant will permit such a profligate waste of funds – but oh my how important.
I was in Afghanistan for the 1st anniversary of 911. We had a small gathering to mark the occasion at lunchtime – heads bowed a few prayers and then back to work.
The press headline the next day? ‘Dawn service interrupted by gunfire.’ When I asked the journo why he lied? It sells papers was the answer. Thats what happens when you chase the clicks, the truth falls through the cracks.
Brett,
I agree, we have have to agree to disagree.
I’m not saying that readers will naturally gravitate to what they ‘need’ to read. What im saying is that the very concept of people ‘needing’ to read something is nonsensical in the commercial context of the article.
I think you misunderstand the concept of search engine optimization. It is impartial to ‘the truth’.
I think you think wrong. I have 30 years of technology behind me.
Optimization is all about popularism – and that is careLESS of the truth.
Have a look at the popular (most viewed) lists today of the media we have, SMH or example lists the most popular 5 for 5 different formats. Not one article of substance in any. If media is to focus on commercialsm then NO article would ever be written of any substance because the readers (the bulk of them) would not want it.
Brett,
You bring a jaded view of ‘substance’. The concept of substance is not fixed and could often be considered relative – what you perceive as ‘substance’ other many not. What you consider to be ‘truth’ other may not.
That is where popularism comes in (to a certain extent). Using polularism concepts as a basis for search engine results gives searchers more of what they are looking for … as opposed to your more totalitarianism concept where searchers are forced to read what some select few believe ‘needs’ to be read.
Jarryd,
You have a habit of picking one word out when you should really read the sentence. Now I am jaded and totalitarianist.
Never did I suggest ‘force’ to read an article and never did I suggest that a ‘select few’ pick what is read.
All I am saying, and go back and read it, is that to take out the editor, and make the media purely commercially driven, as recommended in the original article, is shallow, dangerous and should be avoided for as long as possible so that journalists have a chance to write something that even we would read, that is also important.
My last comment.
Guys, all I know is that newspapers do need to reinvent themselves as do newsagents.
Brett,
Its not shallow, its not dangerours and its already happening.
If newspapers (if that is what they will be called in the years ahead) don’t do this then they’ll fade into the background.
I didn’t intend to portray yourself as jaded – more that every individual is (including editors).
Media that doesn’t embrace a commercially driven future will be overthrown by those that do.