While most publications seem willing to do just about anything to bridge the gap between their legacy print businesses and emerging internet models, it strikes me that there’s a contingent of publishers – mostly small to mid-size local and regional newspapers – who seem destined to ride their proverbial print horses into the sunset and disappear for good. For many, it’s a fate that may transpire despite best efforts to avoid it; the result of aging newsrooms, lack of resources, and inability to move quickly enough. But for a subset of these publications, it may be a conscious choice that reflects and unwillingness to upend a business model that’s served them well for a long time – in some cases, a century or more.
This week, Google issued a response to the FTC’s Discussion Draft on the future or journalism in no uncertain terms. Its language paints perhaps the most realistic view of the print publishing industry to date:
“The large profit margins newspapers enjoyed in the past were built on an artificial scarcity: Limited choice for advertisers as well as readers. With the Internet, that scarcity has been taken away and replaced by abundance. No policy proposal will be able to restore newspaper revenues to what they were before the emergence of online news. It is not a question of analog dollars versus digital dimes, but rather a realistic assessment of how to make money in a world of abundant competitors and consumer choice.”
This statement, which I believe to be wholly correct, is the truth that most of the news industry has been running from as their revenue graphs dive swiftly toward the x-axis. But it does shed some light on why some smaller publishers might be willing to stick by their businesses to the bitter end. As Google’s statement hints, what we are witnessing is not an incremental shift in the publishing industry but the emergence of an entirely new model for content creation and distribution. It’s not, as many publishers seem to think, a matter of turning the knobs and twisting the dials until the money starts pouring in the door again. It’s about fundamentally re-thinking the way readers and publishers interact in the digital world. In order for existing institutions to survive, they will have to undergo a metamorphosis on a massive scale. All aspects of the business – from newsroom makeup to management strategies to distribution channels to ad sales – need to be disrupted, re-organized, and cleaned out. Excess infrastructure needs to be dismantled and discarded. Ingrained policies and procedures need to be uprooted, new skills need to be acquired.
This post is the continuation of a half-formed thought I posted on my personal blog a few days ago. It’s about starting to understand the ways in which the digital world has changed, and is changing, the way we think about news itself. Before starting, I did a quick search for the words ‘journalism’ and ‘commodity’ on Google. Here are a couple of excepts from what I found that I think help frame the discussion:
HTML5 is really cool. It’s going to make a whole lot of things a whole lot easier for developers, and it should lead to higher quality user experiences on the internet, no matter what device we use for access. While I’m excited about all the geeky details of the specification, which is still very much a work in progress, I thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at HTML5 from a news industry standpoint. For both big publishers or independent bloggers, some of the new features are likely to have a direct impact on the ways they present content going forward.
Last week Cheryl and I did a quick case study about 
