Newspapers Beware: Blogs are A Disruptive Technology

|

The UK's INQUIRER weighs in with a smart treatise on why old media publications are getting clobbered, both online and off, and why new entrants like GigaOm and Gawker Media are kicking ass. Some key points:

  • Internet publishing more competitive and less lucrative than offline. This necessitates a very different business approach.
  • Traditional pubs are saddled with legacy business model: Lots of people, pretty layouts, established practices, unions, high salaries, cannibalization fears. They are also run by career executives who aren't eager to do what is often the only thing that will save the publication: Fire themselves.
  • Leading online publications are lean, mean, and flexible: Om Malik's handful of employees work out of their houses.  Malik built his publications on cheap blogging software that can be up and running in 6 minutes.  Valleywag is a two-person operation.
  • Paying fancy-schmancy guest columnists big money is just throwing the money down the drain: online economics just won't support this or other standard old media practices
  • Red Herring and other traditional pubs dying because just "porting" old model online.  This won't work--now or ever.

To this we would add: The transition from print to online is a classic example of "disruption." Print publishing has overshot the needs of the market (think Sears, Microsoft Office, NYT on the doorstep), and early adopters are making do with a far faster, cheaper, and more convenient solution (Wal-Mart, Google Docs and Spreadsheets, blogs). Sure, the new versions aren't as high quality (fact-checking, writing, spelling, design), but they get the job done.  Over time, moreover, the disruptive technology products will improve and push the incumbents toward the high end of the market (DEC/Sun vs. PCs). And eventually, the old model will have lost so many customers that it will no longer be able to support itself.

Many newspapers, such as the New York Times, are doing an excellent job catching up on the blogging trend--by insisting that their current employees do additional work for free.  Some NYT bloggers, such as David Carr, Andrew Ross Sorkin, and Floyd Norris, are superb, and their efforts must be driving vast traffic to the NYT site.

The problem the company still faces, however, is how to effectively transition from the fat-money world of print to the hyper-thin money world of the Internet. Converting print reporters into bloggers will help, but it won't solve the problem: you'll never be able to replace the revenue you're losing on the print side, and someday, the print cash flow will run out. This is the problem that any industry threatened with disruption faces (Microsoft's feeling it, too). It's not that the incumbents can't produce the same product as the upstarts--they can--it's just that throwing their full resources and strategy behind the new model will mean ending up only a fraction of the profitability of their existing business.

The best hope for the newspaper companies, therefore, is to make use of their still-massive cash flow while they can--by investing in digital properties (such as the NYT's About.com) that, over time, will gradually eat the print paper's lunch. Most newspaper companies are doing this, but they aren't doing it aggressively enough. A dozen years after Netscape and three after Google's IPO, online revenues at the NYT are still only 10% of the business.



< Prev. Story
Next Story >

16 Comments




123 said:
如果要說世界有沒有一種不可或缺的東西那我想情趣用品就是一種,他不但增加情趣還增加我們的生活樂趣,夫妻間的新鮮度也都靠情趣用品所以我想它真的是一種很好的東西,晚上就讓我們享受情趣浪漫的夜晚吧,夫妻或者是男女朋友在一起久了情趣早就沒有了,別想要換女友只要換個情趣用品就可以了,各國的情趣精品做的都很好,但是我們台灣的也不錯情趣用品很精緻,老婆今晚我就要情趣,那天經過情人歡愉用品,裡面賣的東西真的很便宜,或是去情惑用品性哥也都有很多好東西,另外情人用品性哥也滿推薦的,最實在的情趣用品

AIO交友愛情館,情人歡愉用品,美女視訊,情色交友,情人用品性哥,視訊交友,辣妹視訊,美女交友,性愛,嘟嘟成人網,按摩棒,震動按摩棒,微調按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,逼真按摩棒,G點,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,性感內衣,飛機杯,充氣娃娃,情趣娃娃,角色扮演,性感睡衣,後庭區,SM,潤滑液,情趣禮物,威而柔,香水,精油,芳香精油,自慰,自慰套,性感吊帶襪,情趣用品加盟,跳蛋情人娜娜,情人節禮物,情人節,吊帶襪,辣妹視訊,美女交友,情色交友,成人交友,視訊聊天室,美女視訊,視訊美女,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友,視訊聊天,AIO交友愛情館,嘟嘟成人網,成人貼圖,成人網站 AIO交友愛情館,情色,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色交友,色情聊天室,色情小說,七夕情人節,色情,情色視訊,情色電影,色情網站,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊聊天,美女視訊,視訊美女,美女交友,美女,情色交友,成人交友,自拍,本土自拍,情人視訊網,視訊交友90739,生日禮物,情色論壇,正妹牆


Robert Proctor said:
“Whilst blogs may be a “Disruptive technology” using the definition given here, there is undoubtedly a symbiotic relationship between blogs and print/old media, particularly given the increasingly fractured nature of the web. Blogs are now able to add value to old media publishers by delivering a niche that would not otherwise exist for which they in turn can receive a financial benefit when joining a publisher network, such as that facilitated by Adify (www.adify.com).

In the UK for example, Adify’s first UK partner is the Guardian who will launch a number of vertical ad networks in key content areas such as Travel and Environment. The network will be composed of small to medium sized publishers who offer high quality content in valuable areas, content which will then be aggregated to build scalable and targetable advertising and sponsorship opportunities for advertisers. Unlike large ad networks that aggregate and sell remnant publisher inventory, Adify enables The Guardian to focus on packaging high-value brand advertising programs. For the bloggers, the Guardian’s established sales team and strong advertiser relationships will bring them higher rates and high quality advertisers – both previously unattainable and unreachable. This is a compelling, mutually beneficial business relationship between old media and new media.

Unlike other vertical advertising networks, Adify’s same controls are available to independent publishers who join networks built on Adify – enabling those publishers to preserve editorial control over all content, including advertising, on their sites. With global partners, such as Time Warner, The Washington Post Company, Reed Business Information, NBC Universal, MediaNews Group, RP Online, and Comcast Corporation, already doing exactly this in the US, Adify represents an ideal mechanism for ensuring that the relationships between blogs and old media is mutually beneficial.”

Rob Proctor, Head of Business Development, Adify Europe

Peter Kafka said:
At the risk of inciting Mr. Dine, need to point out that Jack Shafer actually went and recanted much of his Slate piece when he realized his numbers were incorrect. Mea culpa here: http://www.slate.com/id/2171126/
And yes, you could turn much of the washington press corp into a pool report, but especially with print news, that's already happened. When you see those reporters preening for the cameras at White House press conferences? They're TV people. Meanwhile almost every paper outside of a few giants already gets their DC news (and all other news outside of their burg) via wires or syndication outfits. And its good to keep a few people in DC who aren't particpating in the hive mind - Knight-Ridder's little-known DC guys, most famously, did the most thoughtful reporting re: the Iraq debacle.
Again, if you make this a business-only issue it's clear cut. If you look beyond that it's murkier. My hometown of Mpls-St. Paul has two dailies that even after cuts have too much staff to please their private equity buyers. But it sure was nice to have all those bodies available to cover the collapse of the I-35W bridge and its aftermath. In theory you could have community journalists throwing up their own first-hand stories and photos on the Internet, and in fact they did augment their coverage with that stuff. But those aren't the folks digging into state documents re: bridge repair and talking to structural engineers.

Henry Blodget said:
Plenty of fat to cut in the news industry before need to start worrying about no one chronicling horrors in Baghdad. The industry could start freeing up resources by reducing the number of reporters who take dictation at the White House from several hundred, to, say, a dozen, and that dozen could syndicate their stuff globally--as could a multi-organization bureau in Baghdad.

As Jack Shafer pointed out in Slate last month, 30 years ago even news orgs as august as NYT and WaPo relied on syndication for half their content; the recent ballooning of staffs to produce section after section that land on back stoop unread is actually a relatively recent phenomenon.

David Dine said:
Reading above, it looks like Peter has not yet bought into the vision of this site. Why do you have him around if he will undercut your business?

Tim Walker said:
Re safehouses, etc.: Now that's a good question. For a while we have the Times to do it; Murdoch's legions will cover what he chooses; a few other outfits (AFP, Reuters, the BBC) will still go after stories like these. But as for the the current model . . . I don't know. I'm reaching way back to the days before the news services, and imagining some new version of young Winston Churchill sending 'despatches' home from the front. Not what we've come to expect from the major news organizations today.

Peter Kafka said:
Should have clarified from the beginning - this isn't a business debate. Because obviously the market wins out, and all of us get the free Lohan news we need, and some of us will get the financial news we need (either we'll pay for it or advertisers will subsidize it, just like they we have now.) I just want to know how bloggers are going to pay for safehouses, translators, body armor, etc., necessary to report from Baghdad.

Tim Walker said:
Good post, Henry. The application of Christensen to this is spot-on. It's why the efforts (e.g.) of Howell Raines to do all the old-school things and do them harder never bear fruit. The snot-nosed new-school kids with their (relatively) inferior reporting and their (relatively) inferior cashflow and their (vastly) superior agility win anyway. The news-reading world apparently isn't as invested in the sacred myth of newspapers like the big newspapers themselves are. Om and his ilk get this, and maybe the NYT Co. is getting it, but Tribune and others apparently don't get it.

And Peter, I understand what you're saying, too - but Henry's right. Simple supply and demand should ensure that *enough* reportage - not based on what you or I think would be ideal, but based on what the market thinks of as enough - will happen. Some of the killer reportage that we now get in the tag-teamed, copiously researched multi-parters from the NYT and the WSJ will no doubt move to The New Yorker or Slate or Esquire or wherever. The daily mass newsgathering of the AP, Bloomberg, et al. could go on for a long while in more or less its current form, and even when it doesn't, something new - possibly something no one has yet predicted - will succeed it.

Henry Blodget said:
I didn't say Om will begin publishing NYT quality stories (although there are different measures of quality). I just meant that he and other professional blogs will continue to do more and more reporting (see TechCrunch, et al). And i think part of the "NYT quality" is the writing, editing, layout, photos, timely distribution, etc. that just isn't relevant to a lot of online readers (again, disruptive technologies are not as "good" as the incumbent products--they're just "good enough." And they're cheaper, easier, more convenient, and often more relevant)

Much of the info the Times reports can be transmitted just as efficiently with crappy blog post riddled with spelling errors. the long, beautifully reported, written, photoed, and edited stuff won't disappear--it will just get marginalized. In many cases, it's overkill, and the online revenue models just won't support it.

(btw, I'm not saying that these developments are GOOD. I'm just saying that they ARE).

Peter Kafka said:
Nope. still missing it. not a matter of bodies but money. who will pay people, full time, to report and edit the original news? because if no one does then the oms, dentons and whoevers of the world have nothing to write about. don't kid yourself - the exnyt and exforbes folks working for om and the like aren't going out and doing much reporting - best case scenario they're making other reporting smarter. which is valuable. but a different business.

steve rattner and others suggest that it's hopeless, that there's no economic model that supports nyt-quality reporting over the long run. best case, they argue, is to declare papers a charity case and hope bill gates or someone buys the best ones.

Henry Blodget said:
Over time, the better online pubs, such as Om, etc--which will by then be staffed by ex NYT (and forbes) folks--will do more and more of it. And it's not as if there isn't vast overcapacity in the reporting ranks.

Peter Kafka said:
nice burial for the news business there. still haven't answered the essential question, though: who's actually going to report news in this brave new world? the actually reporting, not the warmed over reheats of newswires, other news reports, etc.

Join the discussion