Why, oh why, are newspapers so bad at innovation? This is a question that I brought up earlier in the week, but it continues to burn in my head.
Take Craigslist, an old tired example, I know, but still very pertinent.
Craigslist was not hard to pull off. It’s not like Newspapers didn’t have the money to invest in a simple message board system ala Craigslist. What they lacked was the innovative spark to think: "hey, why don’t we take classified ads (our largest revenue stream) and put that on the web."
Newspaper reporters are focused on their beats, I’m not blaming them. My fingers are pointed towards the publishers, the people who are supposed to build the business model for newspapers. And although they are catching up, I still see them as way behind the times and it irks me to no end.
Take this CJR Daily post on how newspaper are trying to shape up for the web. It’s written by Bryan Keefer, someone who I knew from when I interned at CJR back in the day.
It’s a well written piece, and while it highlights areas of progress, it also shows the slow rate at which these adaptations are taking hold. Particularly at the end of the piece, where Keefer says that newspapers plan to "increase interaction with readers."
The web is evolving. I’m sure the buzzword "web 2.0" rings a bell.
The social web, user created content, crowd sourcing, all these words are floating around about how the web has already morphed into a new beast, and sites like Digg, YouTube and the rest of the 2.0 darlings are cashing in. Meanwhile, newspapers are just perfecting blogs.
Way to go guys. You got the blogging thing down. As I slowly clap my hands in contempt and disdain.
The slow uptake seems to be a rampant problem in the profession, which is most blatently recognized by technology reporters. Dan Gilmore is a perfect example. He caught on to the social web years ago as a result of his beat — technology and silicon valley. Not only did he tap into blogging, but he famously stated that "my readers know more than me," which is to say that user created content is better than anything I could produce singlehandedly.
Blogs threatened reporters because it leveled the playing field, but user generated content and open source models of knowledge like Wikipedia go well beyond leveling the playing field, they trump any single reporter.
To a traditional newspaper person, however, that probably sounds eerily
threatening, and I’m sure whatever "interaction" the NY Times and
Washington Post want to include in their sites will somehow keep a
strong distinction between reporter and reader.
But it doesn’t have to be threatening. Not for reporters or for traditional media. If they learned to harness it and direct that user generated content in a productive and open manner, great things could be produced.
Broadcast journalism is beginning to realize this, with CNN’s iReport and MSNBC’s be a CJ sections. When will newspapers find a model?
There are models out there (I will probably begin working for one next week — come back then for more details), but the question is if that model will be discovered by the geek early adopters like Craig Newmark or Kevin Rose or a traditional media company like the New York Times. I hate to say it, but my money is on the underdog. Then again, I can’t tell who the underdog is in that analogy anymore.
Woo. Had to get that one off my chest. I feel better now.
I don’t think Craigslist was quite as simple as putting classifieds on the web. One of the interesting innovations is that Craigslist is free (for most listings). That’s something you can do on the web, where you have have what is essentially unlimited space. Still, I suppose it’s true that newspapers still could have come up with that idea. Big institutions like newspapers aren’t known for that kind of agility or innovation, but then, I’m not sure I’d expect them too.
For all the new media buzz, I like having old-fashioned newspapers around. I like blogs too. I like the choice. While not as nimble as new media, I respect old media’s standards of fact-checking, accountability, editing, etc. I certainly wouldn’t want to get all my news from Kevin Rose, or all my research from Wikipedia (not that I ever actually do research, but still).
Slightly off topicâ??I think a key to Craigslist has been the enormous restraint. For example, when asked why there were no banner ads on CL, CEO Jim Buckmaster replied, “It’s not something our users have asked us for” (WSJ). That is fucking awesome.
What pissed me off is how Jon Stewart on the Daily Show totally dissed the concept of iReport. He said that users dictating content would lead to stories about, yanno, dumb stuff…like cows, or “putting your balls on Wolf Blitzer’s head.”
See http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml?start=49 for a clip
Yup, I agree with all web 2.0 popularity and the need of establishment of new media and newspapers. Which would be submitted and rated by users, therefore only popular news would be on a main page. There is a News 2 website (www.news2.ca), which has almost all concepts that were mentioned previously.