| writing that puts story first

Harper Studio posed an interesting question – should newspapers, on the verge of closings and bad news, adopt a nonprofit or stance? This rebuttal was given at HarperStudio’s blog, but I thought I’d include it here as well.
It's Just Like Home, Only Way Minimal

The idea of a nonprofit, and thus editorially uncompromising newspaper sounds like a wonderful idea. However, the two primary comparisons – NPR and Wikipedia – are poor choices. Looking at current business methods that would require tailoring to fit right, rather than creating a new method which would be better suited for the unique scenarios that newspapers face.

Wikipedia, for all of its wonder and uses, has a much different cost structure than a newspaper. The number of people on staff is small, a mere fraction compared to those who contribute as editors and writers. Wikipedia also exists in a market where scarcity is not a concern – as long as the servers are online, and the hosting bills are paid – anyone who wants to read Wikipedia can. Even with these digital advantages, the Wikimedia Foundation still found itself begging for money to reach their relatively low $6 million goal for fiscal 2008.

NPR, which is arguably closer to the newspaper in terms of cost-structure, relies heavily on income derived from affiliates, whom are charged rates in the millions just to broadcast on an annual basis. This helps by evening out the chances for failure by putting a greater financial emphasis on fewer, more interested and invested people. However, even conducting business in this way hasn’t made NPR a pillar of strength. In December, NPR accounted a 7% job cut, trimming jobs across the board, and the cancellation of two shows – which accounted for the network’s entire left coast operation.

The other place where NRP fails is that, should newspapers shift to that type of business platform, they would likely have to scrap all of their advertisements and stop charging for subscriptions. Local printers would pay the newspaper producer, and readers would be asked to made donations to said printers. In exchange you get just the paper. They would, arguably, be quitting their job in hopes to panhandle their way to the same income.

And, as a system of business, donations don’t work. The problem seems to lie in people’s perception of value. Cheap is better than free in many respects. And buying is better than donating. This sense of value is based on spending habit priorities. Bills are a necessity, donating is charity to be done when one has extra money.

A far better question that newspapers should be asking is – “How do we make ourselves indispensable to our readers once again?” The answer seems to be an all out cross-platform blitz – instant headlines through the medium of the user’s choosing – text message, twitter, email. Access to online news as it happens.

But becoming more connected is only one step. Newspapers need to also leverage their specific demographic and give users something that’s hard to find elsewhere – hyper local news coverage. As noted in numerous sources, The Printed Blog is attempting to do this by culling content from local bloggers. For a nominal fee, it’s entirely conceivable that printed newspapers could hire bloggers of certain literary levels, and pay them to simply observe – or syndicate those who are already active.

Granted, the Times Company was already doing something similar to this, and got sued for it. But, they missed the part about seeking out the blogger’s permission first.

And the last step that newspapers needs to do? Cut out everything that the internet does better. Classified, sports, stocks – these three entire sections can be gotten rid of, saving the newspaper money on staff and printing.

The change isn’t going to be easy, but it can be done successfully. Newspapers typically have what new media wants – a vetted and lasting reputation. If they can extend that reputation into the digital world, actually becoming players rathern than carry-overs, all this saving talk will become nonsense.