As USA Today celebrates its 30th birthday, columnists are wondering it it’ll see 40. Or even 35.
Writing in Editor & Publisher, John K. Hartman breaks down McPaper’s run into three stages.
The first decade was growth and massive disruption, as USA Today challenged many of the industry’s assumptions about how and what people wanted to read.
The second decade was prosperity, when USA Today became the most widely circulated newspaper in America and Gannett reaped the spoils of more than $1 billion in investment.
The third decade was decline, marked by competitive surges by The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, changing reader habits and all the economic pressures that have hit the industry. Hartman offers 30 ideas to rejuvenate the national daily, but his list looks a bit forced. The situation “has all the makings of a death spiral,” he admits.
We liked Alan Mutter’s analysis better. The Newsosaur recalls some of the innovations USA Today brought to the market beyond jump-less stories and “We’re Eating More Broccoli” infographics. Founder Al Neuharth astutely scoped out changes in the audience for newspapers before anyone else. He targeted the paper toward business travelers who were time-pressed, mostly male and equipped with expense accounts. Neuharth bet that airline deregulation, which had happened just four years earlier, would spur an explosion of air travel and a boom in the hospitality industry. Hotels are still the single largest distribution channel for USA Today.
Gannett was successful in attracting upscale ads from airlines that were competing on amenities at the time, Mutter notes. Not so much today. Travel has become a cutthroat business, and business travelers now make decisions based more upon TripAdvisor reviews and price-comparison engines than on which airline has the best food. Sports coverage, which was long a USA Today strong point, has been co-opted by ESPN.com and other online channels for the rabid fan. Even USA Today‘s once-prominent full-page weather map is now an  artifact, thanks to smart phone apps.
Mutter points to a more fundamental weakness in the business model: “Nearly two-thirds of its coast-to-coast circulation is built on free copies distributed by hotels and other businesses, meaning that barely more than a third of its readers actually think enough of the paper to pay for it.” Those who do pay have to fork over one dollar, which is far less than they pay for the Times or Journal. The fact that both those dailies are eating USA Today‘s lunch would indicate that price isn’t much of a factor for the dwindling ranks of newspaper buyers.
Neither columnist holds out much hope for USA Today‘s long-term survival, and we have to admit the situation doesn’t look good. This is ironic in light of the fact that Gannett anticipated many of the changes in reading habits that other newspapers grudgingly adopted. While newspaper publishers may have hated USA Today, their reluctant move toward shorter stories, more graphics and full-color production probably staved off the industry’s decline by a few years.
USA Today continues to resist the paywall trend, and its free website may be one of its few distinguishing features. However, the price of advertising is in long-term decline, and it’s hard to believe that free will be a virtue in a crowded market. Unfortunately, USA Today may have little choice. If more people are willing to pay $2.50 for a  copy of the Times or $2 for the Journal, then it’s hard to imagine that a paid website strategy will get much traction. USA Today arguably had more impact on American newspapers than any publication of the last 30 years. Sadly, it may be one of the earliest casualties.

---

Ebyline Challenge Seeks a “100% Solution”

A service that pairs freelancers with editors has teamed with Editor & Publisher to launch a $35,000 journalism contest called the Ebyline Challenge. The contest picks up on a post by Jay Rosen two years ago that asked readers to envision how they could cover 100% of a large topic using a combination of sources. This is basically an innovation contest. “First, come up with an idea for reporting on 100% of something….Fill out an entry form and tell us how you’d use freelancers to make your idea happen,” the contest page says. The 35 grand isn’t cash, but a one-year credit toward use of the Ebyline service.
We like the idea in principle, but the focus on freelancers is too narrow. If you’re going to cover something 100% these days, your available resources should include blogs, tweets, people on the spot with phone cameras and community publishers, among others. That isn’t in Ebyline’s best interests, of course, but the option would open up opportunities for innovation. Not all journalism carries a price tag anymore.

As USA Today celebrates its 30th birthday, columnists are wondering it it’ll see 40. Or even 35.

Writing in Editor & Publisher, John K. Hartman breaks down McPaper’s run into three stages.

The first decade was growth and massive disruption, as USA Today challenged many of the industry’s assumptions about how and what people wanted to read.

The second decade was prosperity, when USA Today became the most widely circulated newspaper in America and Gannett reaped the spoils of more than $1 billion in investment.

The third decade was decline, marked by competitive surges by The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, changing reader habits and all the economic pressures that have hit the industry. Hartman offers 30 ideas to rejuvenate the national daily, but his list looks a bit forced. The situation “has all the makings of a death spiral,” he admits.

We liked Alan Mutter’s analysis better. The Newsosaur recalls some of the innovations USA Today brought to the market beyond jump-less stories and “We’re Eating More Broccoli” infographics. Founder Al Neuharth astutely scoped out changes in the audience for newspapers before anyone else. He targeted the paper toward business travelers who were time-pressed, mostly male and equipped with expense accounts. Neuharth bet that airline deregulation, which had happened just four years earlier, would spur an explosion of air travel and a boom in the hospitality industry. Hotels are still the single largest distribution channel for USA Today.

Gannett was successful in attracting upscale ads from airlines that were competing on amenities at the time, Mutter notes. Not so much today. Travel has become a cutthroat business, and business travelers now make decisions based more upon TripAdvisor reviews and price-comparison engines than on which airline has the best food. Sports coverage, which was long a USA Today strong point, has been co-opted by ESPN.com and other online channels for the rabid fan. Even USA Today‘s once-prominent full-page weather map is now an  artifact, thanks to smart phone apps.

Mutter points to a more fundamental weakness in the business model: “Nearly two-thirds of its coast-to-coast circulation is built on free copies distributed by hotels and other businesses, meaning that barely more than a third of its readers actually think enough of the paper to pay for it.” Those who do pay have to fork over one dollar, which is far less than they pay for the Times or Journal. The fact that both those dailies are eating USA Today‘s lunch would indicate that price isn’t much of a factor for the dwindling ranks of newspaper buyers.

Neither columnist holds out much hope for USA Today‘s long-term survival, and we have to admit the situation doesn’t look good. This is ironic in light of the fact that Gannett anticipated many of the changes in reading habits that other newspapers grudgingly adopted. While newspaper publishers may have hated USA Today, their reluctant move toward shorter stories, more graphics and full-color production probably staved off the industry’s decline by a few years.

USA Today continues to resist the paywall trend, and its free website may be one of its few distinguishing features. However, the price of advertising is in long-term decline, and it’s hard to believe that free will be a virtue in a crowded market. Unfortunately, USA Today may have little choice. If more people are willing to pay $2.50 for a  copy of the Times or $2 for the Journal, then it’s hard to imagine that a paid website strategy will get much traction. USA Today arguably had more impact on American newspapers than any publication of the last 30 years. Sadly, it may be one of the earliest casualties.

---

Ebyline Challenge Seeks a “100% Solution”

A service that pairs freelancers with editors has teamed with Editor & Publisher to launch a $35,000 journalism contest called the Ebyline Challenge. The contest picks up on a post by Jay Rosen two years ago that asked readers to envision how they could cover 100% of a large topic using a combination of sources. This is basically an innovation contest. “First, come up with an idea for reporting on 100% of something….Fill out an entry form and tell us how you’d use freelancers to make your idea happen,” the contest page says. The 35 grand isn’t cash, but a one-year credit toward use of the Ebyline service.

We like the idea in principle, but the focus on freelancers is too narrow. If you’re going to cover something 100% these days, your available resources should include blogs, tweets, people on the spot with phone cameras and community publishers, among others. That isn’t in Ebyline’s best interests, of course, but the option would open up opportunities for innovation. Not all journalism carries a price tag anymore.

Journal Register Co., which has been the poster child for the “digital first” strategy that many newspapers are pursuing, declared bankruptcy today, just three years after emerging from a previous bankruptcy filing. This doesn’t mean the end of the road for the company, of course, but it does dramatize the difficulty of transitioning from a model based upon captive audience and economies of scale to one that accommodates constant audience churn and targeted advertising. We still like CEO John Paton’s vision for reinventing news.

Mathew Ingram has an excellent analysis on GigaOm, as usual. There’s not much we can add to it. As Ingram states, “Digital first is not a magic wand.” There’s still a massive amount of legacy baggage that needs to be discarded. We particularly like his characterization of paywalls as “just a line of sandbags against the rising tide.”

Ever heard of James Macpherson? If you’re a veteran journalist, you probably have, although you might know him better as “that asshole who fired his entire reporting staff and outsourced local coverage of Pasadena, Calif. to India.”

We got a note from Macpherson the other day pointing out that recent trends would indicate that he was a trailblazer, not a nut.

In spite of the clobbering in the media I took for the idea then — and in spite of the Journatic debacle now —  the truth remains that some form of editorial outsourcing IS coming to newsrooms near you, and probably soon…Newsroom outsourcing is inevitable. The idea is so powerful it should be explored and discussed, not simply rebuked.

Macpherson also pointed us to a couple of his own blog entries on the subject: “The Outsourcing of Hyperlocal Journalism Is Inevitable” and “And Now, A Penny for My Thoughts.” They’re both worth reading. As we pointed out recently, the price of journalism is being readjusted to a new equilibrium point, and ideas like outsourcing local city council coverage to writers in Manila aren’t nearly as far-fetched as they once seemed.

It’s a Business

A lot of debate about the future of journalism has been tinged with emotion, which is understandable given how many jobs have been lost. The harsh reality, though, is that the vast majority of journalism is practiced by profit-making organizations. These companies are struggling with seismic shifts that have changed their business model forever. Advertising costs are in long-term decline, reader switching costs are zero, barriers to competitive entry have vanished and mass media are being displaced by specialized media. Any organization that hopes to survive in such a market needs to do things differently.

The approach to outsourcing that Macpherson outlines in this post is rational and workable in many scenarios: Offshore whatever can be offshored and have the people on the scene focus on capturing the action. Keep expertise local and farm out the rest.

If you’ve ever worked in a newsroom, you know there’s a lot of work that doesn’t require people to leave the office. Copy editing is a desk job. So is obituary writing. Editors fill holes on print pages by rewriting wire copy. Sports editors rarely go into a locker room and city editors don’t cover school board meetings. They’ve done all that stuff and graduated to jobs where they supervise others.

Some of this stuff is easy to outsource, and a lot of it already has been dispatched to interns or specialty shops like Legacy.com. The tough part is deconstructing jobs where experience is an asset, like the sports editor. Those jobs should stay intact on these shores, although some of the routine work may be able to be done elsewhere.

Get Me Rewrite

Journalism has traditionally been a vertically integrated craft. The reporter who covers the city council meeting is also expected to write the story, even if that person can’t compose a coherent paragraph. We’ve all known people who were great fact-finders or interviewers but who couldn’t write. Rewrite editors were an early tool to compensate for that. Now technology is taking deconstruction to a new level.

Anyone with a smart phone and an Internet connection can now be a live streaming news source. People on the scene can embellish or correct a published account, even if they don’t work for the news organization. Aggregating, summarizing and commenting upon published reports is the essence of what most bloggers do. In many cases, being on the scene isn’t nearly as important as it used to be.

Outsourcing is not an all-or-nothing proposition, but a process of optimizing for value. Move routine work to the lowest-cost source and invest in stuff that makes a difference. Businesses have done this with manufacturing, payroll, facilities maintenance, information technology and the many other tasks for years.

But what about quality? That’s the most common objection to outsourcing in general, but we think markets are pretty good at figuring that out. Journalists aren’t the ultimate arbiters of quality; their readers are. If you believe that the public no longer has an interest in quality journalism, then outsourcing is a pretty depressing prospect. However, we don’t think the public is that stupid.

Macpherson is right: These ideas should be developed and not dismissed as lunacy simply because they break with tradition. If someone can put out a journal at lower cost that its audience values and that someone will pay to support, then the market will make it own decisions.