Good reads for 01.03.08

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Melissa Worden

A lot of media bloggers are talking about the future of the newspaper industry and how business practices might/should change in 2008:

>> Some say we need more change.

Steve Outing points out that “What’s Needed in 2008” is a change the newsroom culture.

He writes: “The smart news organization in 2008 will be the one that encourages innovation — no, requires it — from ALL its employees … Most importantly, it will develop a training program to teach new-media skills to those still lacking, and regularly bring in innovation and creativity experts to guide both managers and employees. With the latter, exposure to and interaction with those experts will be company-wide.”

>> Some are upset about how change has affected them.

“Instead of serving primarily as watchdogs, we deliver entertainment fodder interspersed with glitzy ads for consumers,” says Perry Flippin in his farewell column at the San Angelo Standard-Times. “Publishers sold their souls on the notion that only the immediate bottom line matters. I believe newspapers are slowly committing suicide to satisfy corporate moguls and grasping stockholders.”

>> Some lament the changes that have already taken place.

Jack Shafer outlines: “Why booze and cigarettes are essential for good journalism” in yesterday’s column about how alcohol was forbidden in the last days of the Cincinnati Post.

He writes: “Philipps’ memo brings a couple of questions to mind: 1) Since when is it considered unprofessional for a journalist to take a drink? and 2) If Post staffers, who were all scheduled for dismissal, did bring flasks to work, what was Philipps going to do if he caught them? Fire them?”

>> Some predict a change in newspaper video production. (And it may not have a happy ending.)

Andy Dickinson dares to say it out loud: “… I think that without proper thought [2008] could be the first and last chance video has to prove itself. So this year, editorial newspaper video (in all its forms) may die in many publications because no one will give it a chance to develop.”

Mindy McAdams followed up his post with a summary and solid nod of agreement.

I think her point #3 is a BIG problem that needs to be resolved, especially as newsrooms continue to ask employees to do more with less time and equipment: “Get your act together on workflow for video. Who edits the video, and how long does it take? How fast do you get it up online? Who posts it online? Is there a bottleneck? Do people have adequate access to equipment and software for editing and compressing and uploading? Is this workflow clear to everyone involved? Have you asked for suggestions on how to improve it?”

>> Some propose changes in the way journalists are paid.

It started with Jack Lail asking: “How’s your CPM?”

Patrick Beeson responds: “As Lail states, I’m sure most reporters would be quite shocked to see how low their CPMs are for their stories. It would also provide an incentive for going after content that users will click to, or want to view. I’m not sure dangling CPM as a sole means for earning a paycheck would be appropriate at this point however. Though it would be interesting to use it as a metric for bonuses or raises.”

Lucas Grindley agrees and proposed: “… a bonus structure based on the number of page views generated by a reporter’s or columnist’s stories. Business 2.0 tried this model and it seemed effective. Those folks who do extraordinary work generating page views are rewarded and, hopefully, the entire newsroom starts to think about what attracts readers.