The Original Sin Of Newspapers: Not Innovating
from the yes,-indeed dept
There's this concept out there in the newspaper world, pushed by Alan Mutter more than any other, that the "original sin" of the newspaper industry was failing to charge when they put their content online. This is simply wrong. Many did try to charge, and they failed, because no one paid. However, Steve Buttry has a post making a much better point. The real "original sin" by newspapers wasn't failing to charge, but failing to innovate. Basically, the entire competitive landscape and the entire marketplace they were used to changed. Entirely. And nearly all of them seemed to think that they could get by doing the same basic thing they had always done.These days, they're blaming everyone else for their problems: bloggers, readers, Craigslist, Google, some unknown "aggregators." But the simple fact is that these newspapers were incredibly fearful of innovating themselves, and basically let all those other sites online do the innovation for them. And now they're upset that the traffic goes to the innovators? At every turn in the game they were free to innovate themselves. They didn't. To then step up late in the game and look for legal and regulatory support to hold back those who did innovate seems inherently ridiculous.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: innovation, journalism, paywall
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Explain the innovations on that?
Are the newspapers online? yes.
Is there a format available that allows people to enjoy the news in all the places they currently enjoy the newspaper? No.
Is there any coming? Give it another 5 - 10 years, maybe kindle version 6 will be able to do it.
You are mistaking product for distribution method again Mike. Perhaps you could innovate on your selection of stories (rather than "newspaper buggy whip" "copyright buggy whip" "patent buggy whip"). You have worked yourself into a rut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Explain the inovation in that
I think that it is ironic that one of the reasons newspapers are in trouble is that they did indeed innovate back in the 1980's. At one time newspapers were run largely on the instincts and experience of the editors and local owners. They spent a lot of money on veteran reporters who knew the local beats. They covered local news. In the 80's newspapers started applying rational management principles. Veteran reporters and local news is expensive. It is a lot cheaper to buy filler material than have local reporters write about it. They decided that it is a lot cheaper to hire a fresh youngster than keep the veteran on staff. The cub can go to city council meetings and write a story. Granted, the cub didn't catch the undercurrents or have an instinct to dig for real stories, but the column inches still got filled up. However, in doing so they lost the community interest in the newspaper, especially among young professionals. The main readers of local papers are now senior citizens who are happy with the filler material and fluffy human interest features. Newspapers lost the eyeballs of the younger demographics, and the advertisers followed the eyeballs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Explain the inovation in that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you can't enjoy online newspapers the same way you enjoy a physical paper. So what? Newspapers have been complaining about losses of sales, which clearly means that less and less people care about reading news through a physical means.
Or at the very least, it means people don't care enough to pay for it.
Mike isn't saying the newspapers will fail. The newspapers are the ones saying their failing, and Mike is simply saying why.
They're simply doing the same thing GM did - making a product that is losing demand. They didn't do enough innovating to follow the users demands, and thus they're losing their chunk of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too true
And the newspaper wants to start charging? Why on earth would I ever pay for that, instead of using cnn.com?
They can cry all they want about losing, but it's really not that they were taken advantage of, it's that they squandered the inherent advantage of entrenched position, others either didn't (cable news) or new players stepped in and took the space (Google, blogs taking over editorial commentary very well, the rise of websites doing original reporting like Talking Points Media). The game's not over - there's a market for good journalists, and people still consume news. But I suspect good journalists will collect a paycheck from CNN and MSNBC, or from one of hundreds of independent organizations, and less so from newspapers, in the future.
It'll all work out. We'll still have a free press, original reporting will still happen. Possibly with more corporate masters, possibly with less, certainly with different. Painful for those that don't survive the transition, to be sure, but for those of us who don't get a paycheck from the newspaper industry, it's not really going to be a big problem. I hope that everyone who does bounces back quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're forgetting history
I think that was an important factor in their failure to even consider innovations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're forgetting history
It's also important to note that newspaper printing is a capital-intensive operation. Printing plants and distribution networks take a lot of money to build and maintain. This creates cost overhead and operational inflexibility which is difficult to overcome.
I'm not suggesting that we weep for newspapers, but you are right to point out that there are factors - internal, contractual and governmental - which have stifled innovation for 30 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess what, it didn't and now they are on the endanger list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Original Sin of Newspapers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Original Sin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@kirby
Your point is well taken, i.e., CNN is a more interesting site. In fairness, they're also part of a mondo television production network. CNN's got its own problems, though ... something about credibility, as I recall.
I think these are both still apples, though. I got to this article because someone I trust--a real person whom I know personally--read it and noted it as interesting. In a more innovative medium than email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Failure to innovate isn't the only sin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]