Last month was the first ever “young journalist blog carnival.” I posted this in response to the question “what are the biggest challenges young people face.” Cliffs Notes: We need to find each other and start talking – institutions (newspapers) might not be around, but journalism will survive, so we should collectively start figuring out how.
This month’s question is: If you were the editor of your local paper, what would you do?
That’s a doozy of a question.
I’m in a pretty comfortable position to speak my mind here – I’ve always worked for myself. I’ve been a contractor and a freelancer, but never really a “staff writer.” I think that influences my view, but also allows me to speak openly. What follows won’t be pretty and I suspect it will piss off a lot of journalists. The obvious reaction will be to blow it off as coming from somebody who has never been a staff writer. That’s fine – fact is, people that have been working in the biz for 40+ years aren’t doing a bang-up job themselves, so brushing this aside like that is to their own peril.
Besides – this is a thought experiment and I want to throw out the craziest ideas I have. That way, the slightly crazy ideas will seem tame 😉 Also, I do consider myself in a position of luxury compared to some of my peers answering this question. It’s so explosive that many are engaging in assignment swaps so they can write about
newspapers that don’t have the ability to fire them. I don’t have that fear – so I’ll just go out and say it. This is what I would do if I were editor of the San Francisco Chronicle.
And here’s why it won’t be a popular blog post.
Re-examine Your Relationship with Staff.
This is code for “fire people.” It’s already happening: Over 8,000 people have been laid off this year.
But here is the positive spin (which I DON’T think most news organizations are acting on). What once was part of an employees salary is now part of your freelance budget. Next thing you now, your staff is down 50% but your freelance roster and budget is up 50%.
The benefit – more flexibility, greater competition and hopefully a greater market for content producers.
Maybe it’s a bias from my career, but freelancing is the future. As the media becomes more distributed we will see less mass media and more mini-media which is produced by individuals or small groups. These people are contractors and if they brand themselves they can….
- Demand fair market price for their time and work.
- Develop a following of readers who respect and feed off their work.
- Work for news organizations when you need them and won’t eat up your budget when you don’t.
The newspaper needs to become more of a news co-op. The staff is no longer “on staff” – but they are part of the community and are on call often enough that they get paid regularly – allowing them to keep on doing what they love doing.
A better explanation of this comes from Jeff Jarvis in his post on newsroom economics. You only have so much money – and I’d suggest taking it out of staff and into freelancing. Yes, I realize freelancing isn’t as stable – but it looks like neither are staff jobs. We can either try and fight the idea that freelancing/contracting is going to be a major part of the future – or embrace it and make it work for us.
The Associated Press….. Are You Serious?
I think this is becoming less controversial, but when I called it earlier this year, some thought I was out of line.
- The Associated Press has become its own news organization. It’s no
longer looking out for newspaper members which originally formed to create the AP. Instead it’s trying to figure out how, as
an organization, it can stay relevant and lucrative itself. That’s great – but for
a newspaper, that means it’s second on the AP’s list of priorities. - Nobody likes seeing the same AP stories on their newspaper. It makes your paper look cheap.
- They are called hyperlinks. They are blue. They are useful. Look Ma’ – here’s an AP story. And it didn’t cost me a thing to link to it!
Money spent on the AP could be money saved and then used for… more freelancers!!!!
Don’t Ignore Print, but invest in the future.
This is again going to be unpopular, especially among my stereotypically young internet focused peers.
Simple economics: Print advertising still produces 80% of a newspapers revenue. That’s why you can’t ignore print. That said, I’d still shake up the people selling advertising. Here’s a great start. I would most certainly enact #1, #3, #4 (is that for real??) among others.
Most importantly: Less AP content – more local content = an easier sell to local advertisers. Local advertising on the web right now is still nascent, but it will catch up. The question is if newspapers will still have good relationships with local business’ so that they’ll be the go-to place for advertising. Don’t forget – the shift when print becomes less valuable than web advertising is fast approaching (2011?). We should position ourselves now to serve local business.’ That’s who we will cater to and that’s who we will serve better when we produce local content for local readers.
Google’s 20% Rule
Everyone knows that Google employees get 20% of their time to do something constructive that could – in the future – turn into a new Google product. This is where Google News, Gmail, Calander and other goodies come from.
I’d argue that the journalism’s equivalent is spending 20% of your time engaging in social networks outside of the newspaper.
Go make friends on Seesmic, Twitter, Viddler, Vimeo, Plurk, MyBlogLog, Dogstar, whatever (emphasis should probably go on social news sites ala Digg, Reddit, Propeller, StumbleUpon, Mixx). Find a social network that speaks to you and become an active member of it. Just make sure that in your profile you mention you are a reporter for the SF Chronicle. Make new friends and bring them home to roost.
I’d encourage all freelancers to do that and while I couldn’t make it mandatory – it would certainly influence who I hire on a regular basis. I know this sounds like doing more work for free – but I practice what I preach and can tell you first hand, engaging in social networking sites isn’t just fun – it has translated into real money for me – I still work for Propeller as a “social bookmarking expert.”
Culture Change
Turn the newsroom into an open space. Every now and then – hold a CopyCamp. Let
members of the public come in and ask questions, tell you what’s going
on in their neigborhood, etc. Break down the wall. Journalism is a
process and it should be participatory. How dare we ship a product out
every day that is produced behind closed walls.
Most importantly: Everything I said above is me shooting from the hip – and that’s what we need. If I were to become the editor of the SF Chronicle guess what, I wouldn’t start wearing a tie. In fact, if the editor does wear a tie, I’d tell him to ditch it (if it’s a woman, lose the power-skirt). We make journalism – not investment deals. We need to loosen up and let go. Right now, we are choking. The biggest change I’d want to make is such that we no longer operate like an institution that resembles the military and more like an institution that looks and acts like a startup.
Forget being polished – upload your first take to YouTube, embede that on your home page and call it news!
I think most of your points have merit and potential, but I have some issues with the idea of replacing much of the staff with freelancers. I think there probably will be increased freelance work in the future, but that percentage will only go up to a certain point, and in the case of newspapers, I don’t think it would be close to 50%. Here’s why:
1. You make the supposition that a 50% decrease in staff translates into a 50% increase in freelancer budget. But you yourself pointed out that most newspapers aren’t doing this. So why would they do so in the future? The fact is that most, if not all, of the savings from staff cuts are not going back into the product. So I don’t really see a corresponding boost in freelance budgets coming.
2. You are right that a scenario with increased freelance will benefit journalists. But the only way that scenario would come to pass is if it benefits the news outlets since they’re the ones who will provide the freelance opportunities. Let’s throw out the question of quality, since I’m not conceited enough to say freelancers can’t write as well as staffers. As far as cost is concerned, outsourcing makes sense for one-time or occasional projects, not for work that needs to be done long term and on a daily basis. Freelancers for investigative pieces or covering some semi-regular recurring events make sense, but using freelancers to cover regular, daily beats doesn’t. And if your scenario does indeed enable journalists to negotiate “fair” compensation for their time, then it’s going to make even less sense for newspapers to outsource since they can likely hire staffers from the huge surplus labor pool that exists for relatively low pay. There are also logistics issues, such as the slim chances of you finding a freelancer to rush out to a breaking news event.
Like I said, I think we probably would see some more freelance stories in the future, but I don’t think freelance “is the future” as you claim, because past a certain point, it will cease to make sense for newspapers, and I think that point is closer to, say, 20% than 50%.
Sounds good Dave!
Don’t worry; I like your post. 😉
With so many freelancers, we may find ourselves in need of a system of vetting journalists. I think something like Newstrust, but focused on the creators of content instead of the institutions they publish through.
Gerard: There is such a site, but it’s based in the UK right now and they are hoping to expand to America soon.
http://www.journalisted.com/
As to the first commenter: I’m willing to admit the 50% number was pulled from out of my arse, just to start the conversation. I realize layoffs don’t = more freelance budget, but if I were running things that’s exactly what they’d mean and that’s what this post was about.
Yes – staff writers will always be around. Yes, they are the writers who will cover breaking news (who said otherwise?).
But yes: Freelancing IS the future. I have no doubt about that. I am very very confident that this is the future we are moving towards. Get on the bus or get out of the way.
Dave,
First, I never implied that you said staff writers won’t be around. What I was saying is that there are a number of roles at a media organization where it would benefit the company more to fill them with staff rather than freelancers, and that I believe to fill those roles thusly would necessitate staff comprising more than 50% of your workforce. And yes, I know you threw 50% out there just as a starting point, and that’s I was using it for as well.
Second, freelancing may be the future for journalists, but is it the future for news organizations? Yes, more mini-media will mean more opportunities for freelancers, but the focus of this discussion is what we would change about the existing mass media organizations (at least that’s what I gathered from your initial post). My first post laid out my reasoning for why I think it would make sense for such media orgs to stay with more staff and use freelancers only up to a certain point. I would like to hear the reasons why you believe such companies should turn to freelancers much more frequently.
hey Dave- I totally agree with you on the freelance front. Even in TV and foreign new bureaus, all I see is downsizing. Anyways, thanks for this post I found it really insightful.
John
You state: “Yes, more mini-media will mean more opportunities for freelancers, but the focus of this discussion is what we would change about the existing mass media organizations”
And that’s your answer: Mass media needs to learn to be more nimble and mini.
I’d consider magazines to be mass media – and they traditionally rely on freelancers. I think newspapers need to start thinking the same way.
Cover crime and courts but reduce the emphasis on sensational murders, etc., and provide a more nuanced picture of the state of the community.
Do those stories still sell? Maybe, but what tone are the papers that rely on them setting?
I agree that promoting freelancing may bring more flexibility for people and companies and better quality pieces as a scheme like this enhances competition.
But I thing not everybody is born to be a freelance. The overhead of being solo is too much for many people: the pressure of handling your micro-business is too high for many, and can block you from doing your actual work.
Although I thing promoting micro-economies is a suitable sustainability long-term strategy in this world of souless and impersonal macro-corporations.
We need structures which lets people do freelancing and at the same time provides them with stabilty and security.
Dave:
As usual, very provocative. You know I’m with you on blowing up the newsroom.
But when I hear thoughts like this, I run them through the prism of my own life to see if they’d make sense. The fact is, if this is the future economics of newspapers, I’d probably have to opt out.
First, lets look at my paper, the Mercury News. We’re laying people off to avoid losing money. So money saved from layoffs is not being shifted anywhere. It’s being done to avoid losing money, and pay off massive debts. So it’s not that freelance has increased less than 50 percent. It’s increased by zero dollars.
Second, what we pay for freelance is a pittance. A freelancer for a mid-size story would be lucky to get $100 to $150. So, without discussing my salary, let’s just say have I’d have to write at least 750. Probably more like 1,000. As as you note, this doesn’t even cover my benefits like health insurance.
One could argue that I’m way overpaid, which is fine. But I can say that as someone who is 40 years old, living in the Bay Area, with two kids, and a mortgage, I’m making just enough to afford living here. If I had to make the big cut that comes with freelancing, I’d simply have to leave, or jump to something more lucrative like PR.
And that is in fact what most of my former colleagues who have left have done. The emerging ecosystem of new news outlets is thrilling, but it’s nowhere close enough to support the numbers leaving journalism. And those new outlets, or evolving old ones, that pay some, would only pay enough to let me dabble.
This is all to say that I think freelancing is something that is ultimately suited to certain people at certain stages of life. Obviously, a few break through to make long-term, sustainable careers of it. And I’m willing to bet you’re well on your way to being one of those folks.
But as much as I might want to try, it probably wouldn’t be an option.
Chris
Thanks for your thoughts – they are most appreciated.
I do see your points – especially re: stage of life. I’m lucky that right now I’m comfortable living a college lifestyle right now. I don’t have a mortgage or two kids.
That said: the scenario above was if I took over a news room tomorrow. If I took over the SJ Mer News, laying people off wouldn’t be to try and recoop money lost. If they aren’t using money on freelancers, they are missing out. As you noted – you can usually get a LOT out of a freelancer for less money. So economically it would make sense for a newspaper to make that shift.
Why don’t they?
It would make for a weird period of struggle for writers, but I also think it would eventually even out into fair wages.
Then again…… I’m a dreamer.
Time to get back to the real world…..
Much love – (and see you soon Chris.. seriously, I really value your opinion, so thanks!!!)