Archives: February 9, 2009
The NYT and “real-time news”
On Saturday, the “public editor” of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, published a long discussion of a story the newspaper had recently reported, and how problematic it was for the Times, and titled his column “Reporting in Real Time.” The original story was about how New York Governor David Paterson had decided not to appoint Caroline Kennedy (who later withdrew from the race) to the Senate because of concerns about a tax issue and an incident involving a nanny with an expired visa. But as the story evolved, it appeared that the Times had been played by an anonymous source within the Governor’s office who wanted to slam Kennedy (as described in this NYT followup).
In his description of the events, Hoyt says reporters knew that the paper’s policy is to avoid the use of anonymous sources if the quote in question is damaging to the subject of the story, but they checked with a senior editor and the decision was made to proceed — in part because “the New York Post had just beaten The Times by nine minutes in publishing its Kennedy-had-problems story.” The editor who gave the original story the green light told Hoyt that “there was a sense of expediency because it’s a very competitive story.” Although the original version of the story that was posted to the website was about the Paterson claims, it evolved through the day and eventually the claims were effectively discredited in what had by that time turned into a very different story.
Is this an example of how the news business is evolving online in real-time, or an example of how a newspaper can screw up its reporting on a competitive news story? Hoyt seems to see it as the latter, saying “The Internet is The Times’s future. But the Kennedy saga is a sharp reminder that a newspaper that prides itself on getting things right must exercise great discipline before pushing the button on a fast-breaking story.” But is that really the case?
Does Kindle’s embrace of cell phones spell trouble for news orgs?
To me, the most interesting element of Jeff Bezos’ Kindle announcement today was that Kindle content will be arriving on other devices soon. (Bezos only hinted at it by referring obliquely to “other devices” during his presentation, but Gizmodo confirmed it.) One presumes you’ll soon be able to download a Kindle app for your iPhone or Android phone, with Blackberries and other smartphones not far behind.
That decision could end up being more important to the company’s fortunes than the new device announced today — which, while a nice upgrade, doesn’t seem to radically change the calculus of whether or not to buy a Kindle. And it could have big implications for news organizations looking to the Kindle as a potential savior.
Business schools have long taught the razor-and-blades business model, in which a high-value good (like a razor) is given away or sold cheaply — with the idea that creating a world with a lot of razors will create big demand for the sale of razor blades. Give away the razor; make millions on the blades.
Apple has made a gazillion dollars by doing the opposite. They sell lots of songs through the iTunes Music Store and make not that much on each. Most of each song’s 99-cent price tag goes to the record label or to overhead. But if people are buying music on iTunes, they’re much more likely to buy a portable device to play those songs on — an iPod, a device where Apple makes a mint on each sale. Give away the blades; make millions on the razor.
Either way, the company is really in two related but discrete businesses: a device and a distribution channel through which to sell other devices.
E-readers: Why won’t the future hurry up and get here already?
Today was a day for dueling e-book readers. Amazon just announced its update to the Kindle, which is significantly sexier than its predecessor (although, at $359, it’s no less reasonably priced). And market newcomer Plastic Logic announced its first content partners for its larger-screened device, which include USA Today and the Financial Times.
We’ve been hearing for years now that the future of news distribution was in portable e-paper devices. And while news on Kindles or similar gadgets is still a very small niche, there is some real momentum gathering in the news business’ big sister, book publishing.
I spoke recently with Russ Wilcox, the CEO and president of E-Ink — the Cambridge company behind a lot of the sector’s technology. He said that it made sense to introduce the tech through book readers. Because earlier displays required a second to reload, that lag imitated the time it took to turn a books page and could have been frustrating with the back-and-forth that comes with reading multiple news stories. And those devices’ text-only environment were a decent facsimile of the book-reading experience.
Lab Book Club: How news orgs’ hunt for profits can drive media bias
[Here's Martin's review of Chapter 3 of this month's Nieman Journalism Lab Book Club selection. For more info, check here. —Ed.]
James Hamilton begins Chapter 3 of All the News that’s Fit to Sell with a question that frames a long-standing debate within and surrounding the media industry: “Do the media provide people with the information they want or the information they need?”
When I started out in the newspaper business in the late 1970s, there were still plenty of old-school editors around — the Lou Grant types whose only tone of voice was gruff, who typed with two fingers, and who (one imagined) still had a hat with a press pass stuck in the brim and a bottle of whiskey in the bottom desk drawer. They were schooled in objective journalism and in the newspaper as an institution providing a great public service, resented references to the paper as as a “product,” would throw us advertising hacks out of the newsroom if we suggested or requested any small editorial favor for our customers, and firmly believed that indeed, their job was to give people news they needed, with “need” defined by them, the almighty editors. They would have no use for surveys to find out what people “wanted”; they made only a few concessions to perceived wants, such as tolerating in the paper non-hard-news features like comics and the “women’s pages.”
But the television news market was never like this — from TV’s earliest days, it was clear that most programs were tailored for specific slices of the viewing audience. The varying demographics of those audience slices differed in value to advertisers, who were willing to pay premium ad rates (expressed as “cost per thousand” or CPM) for a more valuable audience mix — one more responsive to their particular messages. Eventually, this evolved into the highly sophisticated slicing and dicing of an audience that’s now spread across a multiplicity of channels.
Brill’s content-selling plan
Must-reading for anyone keeping up with the resurgent meme of paid content is Steve Brill’s “secret” memo, published today on Romenesko, that offers his plan to save The New York Times by putting it on the path toward paid web content.
Though it sometimes reads like Lee Abrams with a spell-checker (How to charge for content? Charge for it!!), the plan is clearly articulated, if wildly ambitious:
Getting an average of just $1.00 a month (3.3 cents a day) from each visitor would yield $240m in new annual revenue. This is approximately equal to (it seems, from the Times’ financial statements) two thirds to three fourths of all of the company’s annual advertising revenue for all of its internet properties combined. And, of course, this online ad revenue would not disappear or even necessarily diminish if readers paid a small amount for online content.
“If” being the key word.
Elsewhere, Brill sounds an appropriate cautionary note, and stresses the need for a focus on the long-term picture:
…these changes cannot be made with the simple flip of a switch on some magical D-Day; they will require transition periods, testing, and patience. But they will also require determination, steeled by the realization that there is no alternative and that what the Times has done thus far to build a great online journalism product was not a mistake but a prelude to this logical next step.
The full memo is here. What do you think of its merits? Is this a workable blueprint for an orderly transition from paid print to paid online?
Morning Links: February 9, 2009
— Jack Lail has a few brief videos from an ONA Nashville conference on comments and using social media as journalists.
— It’s a week old, but this Wall Street Journal article details what happens when a web site decides to give its audience the choice to turn off ads.
— Chris Anderson gives a preview of his upcoming book on business models based on free products.
