Results matching “to measure online v”

This week, a tax break for newspapers in Washington state went into effect, giving print publications a 40 percent reduction in the state business tax. One lawmaker stressed the tax cut was "not a bailout." It is interesting to note Washington already offered equal exemptions to the aerospace and timber industries, both of which are critical to the state's economy.

In a year which saw the Seattle Post-Intelligencer make the move to online-only and the Seattle Times cut 500 staff members, many publications will welcome any relief they can get. However, others wonder whether the measure will be enough to revive struggling papers and what such aid means for the publications' journalistic independence.

There are many ways to measure the success of a newspaper and its website. A recent report from The Media Audit has ranked the top newspapers in the US based on percentage of adults living in the area who read the print version or visited the site in the last 30 days, and the results are surprising. The top-ranked publication: the New Orleans Times-Picayune and its online counterpart nola.com.

Nola.com tied for first in terms of the proportion of adults visiting the site, with 50.4 percent making it online in the past 30 days. The Times-Picayune came out second for print readership, with 75.6 percent of New Orleans' adults picking up the paper. However, when factoring in duplicate readers (those who read the paper as well as visit the website) the Times-Picayune reaches 85.8 percent of adults in the metropolitan area.

The Washington Post is restructuring its newsroom to be revolve around a cross media software concept.  The daily is the third US based publication to adopt the Methode system from EidosMedia S.p.A., following the Seattle Times and The Wall Street Journal who made the move last year. 

The adoption of the Methode is a firm indication of the convergence of the online and printed media in news provision.   The choice of software corresponds with the decision of the Post to combine its online and print operations.  The two teams will merge into a remodelled newsroom, in theory before the functioning of the new software begins. The Post is approaching the restructure with vigour: In January it appointed two new managing directors to oversee the developments, Elizabeth Spayd and Raju Narisetti.  The paper's new Executive Editor Marcus L. Brauchli, headed the previous restructure whilst at the WSJ.  The logistics of the move however, highlight the gloomier side of necessary evolution: according to Narisetti, the combined staff will measure the same or just under that of the print staff as it stood eighteen months ago.  The diminishment has been due to attrition and buyouts.

French newspapers Le Figaro and Libération have both taken the decision to not publish on certain public holidays in the country, in addition to the traditional abstention from printing on the 1st May. Both have chosen not to print on Christmas Day and New Years Day, and Le Figaro has also selected August 15th, whilst Libération will no longer be available on May 8th, the Thursday of Ascension and November 11th.

Libération co-president Nathalie Collin described the move as "a good management measure", in terms of staffing. She claims that dropping these print days will enable Libération "to better manage working schedules during the year". The main reason given by Le Figaro's director general, Francois Morel, was of the economic variety. He pointed out that many newspapers kiosks are closed on public holidays, and that "everyone agrees that sales on these days are derisory".

Reports recently out say that the Telegraph online attracts an impressive 8% of its traffic from
news aggregators and social networking sites such as Delicious, Digg, Facebook, Reddit, Stumbleupon and Twitter.

The 8% figure is equivalent to a staggering 75,000 unique visitors daily. So, how does the Telegraph do it?

The Internet has affected newspapers in many ways, and though recent focus has concentrated largely on falling revenue due to reduction in print advertising, it has also given papers the chance to greatly expand their story-telling capabilities. As well as just words and pictures, there are now numerous different ways to enhance a story: through video, audio, slideshows, interactive maps and graphics, and more. But are newspapers making full use of the opportunities that the Internet offers to change the way that they produce their stories?

Upendra Shardanand, CEO and founder of Daylife, wrote in Paid Content about his belief that journalistic storytelling is "stuck in a rut." He describes how publishers he meets are eager to revamping many parts of their business such as distribution, and how do generate revenue, but "one aspect of their businesses that very few seem to question is the actual craft of writing and telling stories." The Internet offers so many opportunities that he feels journalists do not take advantage of, rather they leave it to sites such as Outside.In and Everyblock who "treat content like data and tear it apart just to reassemble it into infinitely browsable, non-linear experiences." He compares this process to the way that Amazon has "revolutionized" shopping.

Facing financial difficulties, a month ago the Detroit Free Press decided to limit home delivery of its paper to only three days a week, to print small editions on other days, and to encourage people to get information online. Poynter reporter Bill Mitchell takes a look at how Detroit's initiative is progressing so far, saying that "readership of the e-edition is up -- a lot -- and cancellations of print and online combo subscriptions haven't been as massive as feared."

Since the change, only half as many subscribers have canceled as was projected, and papers are re-starting those subscriptions at a rate of 100 per day. About 6,300 people have been willing to triple their subscription price to have the paper delivered on the days home delivery is normally not offered. The paper's e-editions, which are different from the web sites, attract 30,000 people per day and 3 million page views a week, and the traffic to the web sites has increased.

On Tuesday the Obama administration rejected the newspaper industry's request to change antitrust and media ownership laws to allow newspapers to compete with the threat posed by the Internet, reports the Associated Press. "We do not believe any new exemptions for newspapers are necessary," said US Justice Department's Carl Shapiro, an assistant attorney general for economics.

The hearing took place before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy and was prompted partly by an appeal to the Justice Department from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to reexamine antitrust laws. Newspaper industry representatives complain that existing laws do not consider newspapers' new advertising competition with bloggers and online news.

As information becomes increasingly available and accessible online, newspapers find it hard to justify paying for a subscription to news wire services: an Associated Press membership, for example, can cost up to $800,000 a year for a newspaper. As a cost cutting measure, newspapers are sharing their news rather than subscribing to costly news wire services. Some examples are Tulsa World and the Oklahoman, Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun, and the Philadelphia Inquirer with Pittsburg Post-Gazette,

Next week the Minnesota Twin Cities' Star Tribune begins an experiment in which it will offer certain stories to print subscribers before posting them online. While the Star Tribune will continue to publish breaking news stories online right away, readers will have to buy the paper for immediate access to investigative pieces and deeper, more exclusive content.

According to Star Tribune Editor Nancy Barnes in an editorial on StarTribune.com, the purpose of the initiative is to both reward paying print customers and also to experiment with how the publication delivers its content. "We're going to watch and measure the results, collect reader feedback, and let that drive our decisionmaking about whether this is something we want to do permanently."

Critics of Senator Benjamin Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act are concerned that the bill will stifle freedom of speech. On Tuesday Cardin proposed a bill that would allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt non-profits with 501(c)(3) status. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt and contributions to the papers would be tax deductible.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, reporter James Taranto points out that, though the bill expressly permits nonprofits to publish newspapers, there is no existing legislation that prevents them from doing so now. Some newspapers, including the Christian Science Monitor, currently operate as non-profits, the difference being that under Cardin's bill the nonprofit papers may sell ad space free of taxation as long as sufficient space is provided for editorial content.

The Society of Editors and the Newspaper Society have sent British Culture Secretary Andy Burnham a list of urgent action points to help the UK local media industry survive problems caused by the recession and the changing media industry. Nigel Pickover, Society of Editors president, and Michael Pelosi, Newspaper Society president, wrote the letter in response to a request from Burnham at a meeting with the presidents last week.

According to the Guardian, the chief concern of the two groups is that Google and other online news aggregators are profiting from paid local media content. "The biggest cost is gathering news in the first instance; comment may be free but facts are expensive," said Bob Satchwell, director of the Society of Editors. "If advertising is attracted to aggregators but not going to the people that originate the news, then the problem needs to be considered."

The discussion on losing print news heated up with NPR's decision to stop all of the company's newspaper subscriptions as of April 1. A memo sent out on March 12 states:

"As of April 1 NPR is canceling all newspaper subscriptions. We are making some arrangements to get the Wall Street Journal either on line or hard copy. You have until tomorrow to appeal this if there is a solid reason why you should be exempt. This is a cost-saving measure company wide."

Despite the government subsidisation that they have received, Cyril Blanc of the Guardian thinks that French newspapers are still in trouble. Blanc writes that the problems of the US industry look particularly gloomy from France, as "the French regard the NYT and papers like the Los Angeles Times as the perfect incarnation of what their own papers should be." So, it is with great irony that he quotes former Le Monde director Alain Minc, who has previously said that French newspapers should become more like the NYT but writes in his new book that "this very same paper will be bought out by Google for a symbolic dollar by 2011".

Criticising the French for ignoring online successes such as Rue89, whilst subsidising the struggling newspapers, Blanc believes that "a more creative approach is needed".  He cites other examples that the French media could learn from, such as the Huffington Post. Blanc believes that Sarkozy's tax exemptions and advertising boost for newspapers "could only have the effect of postponing their collapse", whilst the "more dramatic move to give every 18-year-old in the country a one-year subscription to a daily paper... is perhaps the only measure that might have a longer term effect".

As many newspapers fold, make cutbacks, and focus their resources online, actual "newsroom" jobs are dwindling, requiring journalists to transition to online reporting to maintain their careers. Some newspapers are implementing retraining for their reporters to teach them how to approach Internet journalism, as the new industry requires different approaches to telling stories and delivering content than printed journalism, and also to provide technical training in using software.

According to former New York Times reporter Sharon Waxman in The Wrap, the New York Times is offering to retrain its print reporters to be producers for the web. Waxman calls this measure necessary: with "a skyscraper full of overpaid reporters and editors," low stock prices, declining print readership, and a need to maintain the "core intellectual capital," she believes it is time for the Times to make crucial changes.

Various ideas to overhaul the business model of newspapers have been debated in recent weeks, such as the possibility of a return to paid online content, or a non-profit endowment scheme. Both have potential, but both are long term solutions that would take some time to implement, and for the immediate crisis at hand, could government help be the answer? At the end of January French President Nicolas Sarkozy approved a 600 million euro package of measures to save the beleaguered French press. Ideas for some kind of bailout plan have been floated in the US for several months now, following those for banks and the car industry, and similar discussion has taken place in the UK. Is a similar bailout likely to happen anywhere else? Could it save the struggling industry, or is such government involvement in the media too dangerous?

The French way

The French measures announced came largely from recommendations in a three-month study into the industry's health that was released in early January. The proposals were largely based on reducing productions costs, but the study also recommended that newspapers restructure their finances and that journalists be better trained for multiple forms of media, including online. Sarkozy's speech instructed newspapers to improve the content of their articles, bring in younger readers and transform business models

Arguably the most controversial measure was the decision to give 18 year olds a year-long subscription to a newspaper of their choice. This is clearly a direct subsidy, and one which many people do not think will work. It does seem optimistic to imagine that thousands of teenagers are going to find the time in their day to sit down and read a broadsheet rather than scan news online, and then be inspired to continue such a subscription. The package also included a major increase in state expenditure to support newspaper and magazine deliveries: 70 million euro from 8 million last year. The government will double its spending on advertisements in print publications. The state will also defer some fees the publications face, and Sarkozy announced a freeze on the cost of postal distribution and a reduction in payroll taxes for newsagents. He also extended tax breaks for investors in online journalism.

France's press is among the least profitable in Europe, with circulation figures of around half those of the UK and Germany, and national newspapers suffering particularly. According to the Guardian, it is "stifled by rigid communist press unions, a lack of kiosks selling papers and a declining readership far below that of the UK or Germany." Sarkozy has promised to increase points of sale, and work to improve newspaper delivery to both kiosks and homes. Another major problem is high printing costs, as presses are controlled by communist union Le Livre. Sarkozy announced that the state is aiming to reduce printing costs by 30-40 per cent by negotiating with the union.  

Sarkozy insisted that the aid package was not an attack on press freedom, the Guardian reported. "I don't understand how anyone could doubt the legitimacy of the state in this process," he claimed, comparing the press to any other industry in need of aid, such as the automobile sector. Incidentally, the French car industry just received a 6.5 billion euro loan from the government. And the French state already gives 1.5 billion euro in direct and indirect aid to the press each year. The Guardian asserted in January that "the public's trust in the media is at an all-time low in a climate where politicians rewrite their own interviews for publication and the president's powerful business friends, from construction to arms manufacturing, own several major papers or TV stations." Which does not really sound like ideal circumstances for the government to get further involved in the media. It is too early to assess the effects of the bailout on newspapers, though it seems to have been received favourably by editors.

UK's regional focus

Another country where public trust in the media is at an all time low is the UK. Research by the Media Standards Trust revealed on 9 February that only 7% of the public trust national newspapers to behave responsibly. "Without urgent reform we believe that self-regulation of the press will become increasingly ineffective at both protecting the public and promoting good journalism and, without prompt action, there is real danger that it will become increasingly irrelevant," said Martin Moore, director of the Trust. The report calls for government intervention to ensure press accuracy and to limit intrusion on people's private lives. But would such government intervention be accompanied by financial aid?

In response to Sarkozy's announcement of the French plan, a spokesman for publisher Trinity Mirror said: "We don't believe that direct subsidies are a safe or sensible way forward. There are two easy things for the government to do. The first is to indicate that they will intervene and allow consolidation of regional newspapers on public interest grounds. The second is to return to using local newspapers for public notices and public sector job advertising." Many papers have called for changes to competition regulations in the local and regional sectors to more easily facilitate mergers, and the UK's Office of Fair Trading has confirmed it is to launch a full consultation on the local media ownership regime next month. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger went a step further and raised the question of public subsidies for newspapers in November 2008, arguing that as broadcasters compete for government funding, why shouldn't local newspapers too? "There has never been less certainty about the future of local news in this country," he said. Roy Greenslade, amongst others, criticised this view, saying that information should not all be funded "through the mechanism of the state."

American opposition

Across the pond in the US, Connecticut legislators sparked debate at the end of 2008 by petitioning the state government to help local papers whose publisher Journal Register said it could not afford to keep them open any more. Journal Register has been forced to close 'dozens' of newspapers in recent months. Connecticut's Department of Economic and Community Development is offering tax breaks, training funds, financing opportunities and other incentives for publishers, but not cash. According to economic development commissioner Joan McDonald, Connecticut does not see trying to find a buyer and offering tax breaks as exerting influence on the press. In January, the publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News were in discussions with Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell about getting the two largest state employee pension funds to help bail out the papers.

But there has been considerable opposition to any such notion, as could be expected in a country which prides itself on its free market attitude. The Wall Street Journal asserted that a newspaper bailout was "the worst bailout idea so far," and stressed that "independent journalism is valuable, but only if it is truly independent."  Editor & Publisher editors warned that although it could be tempting to seek government assistance, "Uncle Sam's purse comes with lots of strings attached." Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor, commented "you can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it."

There is already some unobtrusive government assistance to American newspapers, for example the US Postal Service has offered discounted postage rates. Also, several cities have papers running under Joint Operating Agreements, created following the congressional Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 to keep competing urban dailies viable despite circulation declines.

Can a bailout be justified?

It is possible that other European countries will follow the French example, but an American bailout seems to be extremely unlikely. The British people are used to the idea of public funding for news, given the prevalence of the BBC, so maybe they would be more open to the idea of more government subsidies. But it could also be argued that given the major presence of the BBC, there is enough government involvement in news already.

It is undeniable that as one of the main roles of the press in a democracy is to criticise the government, it must remain entirely free of any government influence, and there is always the risk that government support could lead to influence. The idea of the press relying on the government to any extent is extremely unappealing to many people. But another valid point is that given the importance to any democracy of an active press, it is the government's duty to support the press in time of need.

Making sure that press friendly laws are in place, rather than offering a cash injection, is probably as far as the government should go, in 'normal' circumstances. But perhaps given the current problems plaguing the industry, some limited, short-term government assistance could be justified, to help papers make the necessary adjustments to working online, until an appropriate business model can be found, or until the economy starts to recover. In any kind of bailout, help should be given in such a way where there would be no risk that it could be considered as an attempt to influence. It would be essential to ensure that any help offered to newspapers was offered country-wide, and that it did not give any papers advantages over others. And government support should not be a substitute for innovation, and should not stifle entrepreneurship.

Could the non-profit model be the saviour the newspaper industry has been looking for? This question was prompted by a New York Times op-ed on 28 January, which proposed that America's "most valued sources of news" should become non-profit institutions funded by endowments. Animated responses to this article, both positive and negative, have appeared throughout the media since: from Steve Coll writing for the New Yorker who suggests that the rise of non-profits is verging on an inevitability, to Roy Greenslade in the Evening Standard who believes that the obliged political neutrality will be the stumbling block, to Jack Shafer of Slate who feels there is "something disconcerting about wanting to divorce the newspaper from market pressures." The Editors Weblog spoke to Paul Steiger, Editor-in-Chief and President of ProPublica, one of the largest American non-profit news ventures currently in existence, to find out more about how the non-profit model works for them. As a former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, Steiger has plenty of experience in the for-profit side of the industry as well.

How ProPublica works - free articles for partner papers

New York-based ProPublica uses its funding to support 28 staff, who produce investigative reporting which is then given, not sold, to news outlets. Editors and reporters decide which stories they want to pursue, and after beginning investigation into the issue, they will offer the story to a relevant publication. If the original choice of partner does not want it, ProPublica will find somebody else. Steiger said that ProPublica articles have appeared in about 20 newspapers, including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, "a bunch of websites", as well as television news channels, such as CNN or CNBC. Stories appear on the ProPublica website shortly after publication by the chosen partner: ProPublica promises an appropriate period of exclusivity but Steiger explained that many partners are happy for the story to appear on ProPublica either immediately, or a matter of hours later. The site will always link to the partner that has the story, which is publicity for the partner and means that "people coming to our site will always know what we are up to."

Stories with moral force
.
The general criteria for stories are those which "shine a spotlight on abuse or power of failure to uphold the public interest," according to Steiger. Reporters have broad beats, such as the effectiveness of government spending, health care, energy and the environment, voting rights or the impact of the legal system on the poor. These are national issues, which sometimes veer into international territory, but can also have a local focus. Steiger described one of the most important projects in the past year: an investigation of the risk to the water supply of deep drilling for national gas, which is undoubtedly a national and even international issue. But because reporters discovered a crucial government decision pending in New York state which would have put legislative and regulatory protocols into place to give the industry carte blanche to drill wherever it chose, ProPublica offered the story to the local Albany Times Union, and hence grabbed the attention of the governor and legislators. Government policy was consequently changed.

Propublica searches for stories that "shine a spotlight on abuse of power or failure to uphold the public interest"

Embracing multimedia, enhancing impact

ProPublica has embraced online distribution. The newsroom has "a huge online focus," stressed Steiger, "much larger than I expected when I got into this." He explained that the organisation has had "tremendous success" with outfits such as Politico or the Huffington Post, "they have given great distribution to some of our stories." Steiger is also enthusiastic about the multimedia advantages of online reporting: "the awareness of how online graphics and online interactive elements can enhance a story and enhance its impact is penetrating through the entire group," he commented. The older staff from print backgrounds are learning rapidly from the younger reporters with online backgrounds, " because that's where so much of the energy and the growth is."

Money doesn't buy you influence

One of the potential problems with privately funded non-profit news organisations is the risk that those who fund them might try to influence the news that comes out of them. Herb Sandler of the Sandler Foundation, ProPublica's principle founder, is also chairman of the ProPublica board, which leads an outsider to question his influence over the reporting.  Steiger was clear that "he and the board have agreed that they will have no advance knowledge of what we decide to cover. They will see it on the day of publication." Steiger ensures that reporters are shielded from influence from the board: although board members are invited to offer story ideas, Steiger emphasised that "these are to be funnelled only through me or through managing editor Stephen Engelberg so the reporters won't feel pressured by getting a call from a director." The Sandler Foundation has made a multi-year funding commitment. Other funders are the MacArthur Foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies and Mary Graham's personal foundation.

"The board have agreed that they will have no advance knowledge of what we decide to cover. They will see it on the day of publication."

So, is this a model that could be implemented more widely?

Paul Steiger explained that his day-to-day job at ProPublica was no different because of the non-profit element of the site. So, is this a model that could be implemented more widely? It is clear that the business model that has supported newspapers until now no longer works. Instead of desperately trying to save and adapt the current business model, is it time for a new one altogether? The authors of the New York Times piece, David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, both from the Yale's investment fund, believe that "As long as newspapers remain for-profit enterprises, they will find no refuge from their financial problems... By endowing our most valued sources of news we would free them from the strictures of an obsolete business model and offer them a permanent place in society, like that of America's colleges and universities." A shining example (outside the US) of a paper not pressured by making money for shareholders is the Guardian, which is owned by a trust, and has been subsequently less affected by the recent financial downturn. The paper's website almost always tops the list of British newspapers in terms of reader numbers, and generally boasts more than the New York Times. The privilege to work without extreme financial pressure is something which would undoubtedly benefit the world's newspapers. One crucial point would be to ensure a long term endowment, as having to frantically search for funding every year would apply the same pressures as for a for profit.

An obvious issue to address is the cost: huge endowments would be needed to fund a large national newspaper. ProPublica has annual operating costs of around $10 million, which supports a staff of only 28. To support a newspaper such as the New York Times, you would need a $5 billion endowment, according to Swenson and Schmidt, or $2 billion for the Washington Post, according to Coll. Steiger's response was "how many people are there who have $5 billion to step up and set up an endowment, even for a wonderful property like the New York Times?"

"How many people are there who have $5 billion to step up and set up an endowment, even for a wonderful property like the New York Times?"

And he has a point. For a start, there is the question of what news is worthy to fund. Investigative reporting such as ProPublica's is one thing: asking people to fund journalism in the public interest seems a reasonable request.  Finding people to fund an entire newspaper - including sections such as entertainment, sport and crosswords  - seems harder. Steiger does, however, see some future for non-profit newsgathering. "I do think that it's possible that non-profit operations can play an expanded role and can fill in some of the gaps. But can the concept turn around a fundamental destruction of the basic business model of metro newspapers? No it can't." This is true: non-profit journalism is a way to prop-up existing structures, but will only make newspapers dependent on outsiders rather than encourage them to develop new ways to survive on their own. It does seem that many of the arguments for endowments are to ensure that newspapers not only survive, but survive just as they are now. Maybe this is the wrong way, maybe in fact they need to change.

Maybe newspapers need to change more fundamentally?

Jack Shafer makes the valid point that the capitalist system is what allowed the great newspapers to achieve success in the first place. "The Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal earned their reputations by competing in the marketplace, not by stroking philanthropic billionaires or foundations," he argues. Their dynamism and adaptability allowed them to gain their dominant positions in the market; to remove the financial impetus for such growth could have a detrimental effect on their innovation and efficacy in news distribution. It would also, crucially, change the way that they measure their success: an increased focus on story impact could be a positive outcome but this is not relevant for many types of news.

Newspapers need to change and develop, as they have over many years, in terms of what they cover, how they cover it, and how they reach their audience. The Internet has truly revolutionised the way people follow the news, and endowments should not be a means to stifle necessary change that should follow. Other strategies must also be investigated, such as an industry-wide decision to implement payment for online news. But for now, if newspapers are to function effectively, whether in print or online, as a crucial part of a democratic state, they need to find a way in which they can maintain sufficient staff and resources. Maybe a partially-funded model is the solution, at least in the short term: whereby the arguably more democratically valuable reporting is supported and protected by an endowment, leaving the papers to find a way to make up the rest of the revenue needed for other reporting and further costs. And hopefully out of these endeavours a new more durable business model could emerge. At least for the immediate future, there is an organisation like ProPublica to provide vital proactive investigative journalism to the American public.

To mark the relaunch of the Editors Weblog, the World Editors Forum is running a special series entitled "Doing More with Less." The series highlights major trends that editors-in-chief are using to steer their newsrooms through the difficult economic climate. The seventh in the series takes a look at non-profit investigative journalism site VoiceOfSanDiego.org.

As newspapers make cuts to survive and concentrate their efforts, one of the first areas to suffer is the time- and resources- consuming field of investigative journalism. And that is where the VoiceOfSanDiego.org has stepped in; a non-profit, online-only publication focussing on quality investigative reporting for the San Diego area. The Editors Weblog spoke to Executive Editor Andrew Donahue and housing and economy reporter Kelly Bennett about their mission.

The Gap

"If there is one storyline that sums up why we exist, it is because investigative journalism on a very local level isn't being done." Andrew Donohue was clear about the role of VOSD: to fill the gaping hole in "in-depth analytical accountability journalism, the public service arm of a newspaper," that has emerged in recent years in other communities as well as in San Diego.
Donohue believes that "so many newspapers are cutting back to such extreme levels that there is no way that they are getting the investigative news that they deserve and need." The problem is most severe in American cities, where for many years there has been just one newspaper with something of a monopoly on providing information, so if that paper stops launching investigations, then who will take its place? Investigative journalism has a vital role to play in local societies, exposing wrongs and pushing for change. Bennett pointed out another important element to consider: its value as a deterrent against potential corruption. She sees this as a safeguard for society, it is about "developing that reputation that there are people looking, sending a message to people in power."

"If there is one storyline that sums up why we exist, it is because investigative journalism on a very local level isn't being done." 

Balancing site readability and impact

VOSD reporters are assigned to specific beats, a concept borrowed from traditional publications. Donohue explained that the VOSD journalists were constantly trying to balance the two crucial elements of their job: to keep the website lively and updated, but also to commit time to investigative reporting that can have a significant impact. Such reporting is undoubtedly time intensive if it is to be done thoroughly, which it is at VOSD. Staff are encouraged to meet with any relevant sources and to always do public records requests and fight "really hard" for documents. Bennett explained that the very nature of investigative journalism means that you never really know how a project is going to turn out, so it can be difficult to allocate appropriate resources.

Inspirational reporting

Donohue pointed out one major project, 'Redevelopment gone wrong' which has been an inspiration to him and his staff.  VOSD launched three different areas of investigation into public agency the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., and over the course of a number of years "exposed a wide range of conflicts of interest, fraud and other sorts of misbehaviour." The publication's work has led to FBI and criminal federal grand jury investigation, the board of the agency has been completely revamped and the president has been forced to resign. Donohue is proud of the depth of coverage produced, of VOSD's determination to keep sticking with the story, and of course of the impact. "It can be very disheartening and very frustrating if you spend 6 months on a project and nothing actually changes," he explained. So "watching the impact of this story has been inspiring for us as journalists."

Day-to-day flexibility

VOSD has a more flexible working environment than many traditional publications.  Donohue explained that as long as reporters are "producing the quality of journalism that we require," they are free to work from the office or at home, and can choose their hours.  They have also tried to "eliminate the idea of deadlines altogether," explained Donohue: stories go up on the site when they are ready. Reporters are always free to propose their own stories, they are not necessarily assigned by editors. "We are firm believers in the idea that ideas bubble up from reporters' beats," added Donohue. "I would be a fool if I thought that I knew more than my reporters about their beats"

Staff: traditional experience and new blood

VOSD's eleven staff are a mixture of experienced journalists who have worked in newspapers for many years, and people fresh out of college who have never reported full time before.  Donohue explained that both "offer really valuable perspectives," although those who had been at traditional newspapers longer found it harder to adapt to work at VOSD.  "It's fascinating to watch" the process, Donohue commented. Bennett described how staff often discuss the "rules" of traditional newspapers and decide which ones they should follow.

Non-profit allows for total focus on story impact

Both Donohue and Bennett were very positive about the advantages offered by VOSD's non-profit status. Most crucial is the simple fact that they do not have to make anyone any money; rather just make enough to support the organisation.  This means, as Donohue explained, that "you measure success differently." Papers which are desperately seeking every hit they can get on their website risk cheapening their news, or moving away from their core focus. "We know what we could put on our site to get more hits," stressed Donohue, "but it would lessen the impact of our stories." The unique aspect of a non-profit, Donohue explained, is that "ultimately our success is judged by the impact of our stories: What have our stories done?" And this impact, evidently, is what is most important to investigative journalism. Bennett added that for her, "there has been some major value in being able to tell people that you are writing the story independently. For me the non-profit, independent aspect of VOSD has been part of the justification for reporting the way I do."

"Ultimately as non-profit our success is judged by the impact of our stories: What have our stories done?"

Donor money does not buy influence

One potential problem with privately funded non-profits is that those who fund them could try to influence the news that comes out of them.  Donohue was clear that this has not been a problem at VOSD. "We have made it very clear that your money does not buy you influence," he clarified. "We draw the lines, and as long as we draw them clearly and boldly then there aren't problems." He explained that he himself had been sceptical of donors' motives when he first started working with VOSD, but that he had quickly come to understand that investigative journalism at its heart is a "public service institution," and that many funders were large philanthropic organisations who frequently give grants to all sorts of organisations. A recent donor was the Knight Foundation; others are local foundations that work on quality of life issues, others are "prominent citizens," or members of the community who give smaller amounts. A total of 750 people have given money.  

Multimedia and reader interaction

One of the great advantages of being online-only is the potential for multimedia. As Bennett pointed out, if a newspaper promotes a multimedia package to accompany a story, there will be so many steps to take to actually access it that few readers will, while as online, it is right there.  She accompanies some stories with video, audio or slideshows when she feels it would add to them.  Her monthly feature "People at work," which looks at a San Diego resident through the lens of their job, often includes a multimedia feature.  Another benefit of working online is the possibility to interact with readers.  VOSD allows comments on its opinion pieces and opinion blogs, but not on news stories or news blogs, as Donohue believes that they should "let the news stand by itself," and they do not have sufficient resources to carry out the necessary moderation of the comments. Reporters also interact in different ways with their audience, using blog postings to solicit thoughts, ideas and comments for stories, which Donohue described as "a great source of information." A regular feature called 'The People's Reporter' is very popular. Readers can send in tips and questions and a reporter will spend a day responding on a blog, and "it has led to great discussion and some more long-term stories, Donohue explained.

Competing with traditional media?

Donohue described VOSD's relationship with local paper the San Diego Union-Tribune. He was adamant that VOSD is more than just an alternative voice to supplement the Tribune's coverage, but also not a direct competitor overall. However within VOSD's chosen field of quality of life issues, the site does compete: "we always want to have the best stories and have them first." And Donohue hopes that the people of San Diego benefit from this lack of monopoly, as "the more competition there is in the media, the better it is for everybody and the better the community is served."

Is this the future for local news?  

VOSD's coverage is firmly local, and focussed very much on quality of life issues. Donohue believes that the model works, and plans to continue along the same lines, although he sees it as one of many that will be tried in upcoming years. The non-profit model may well have to be used more: "at least until news orgs find a way to make this thing work financially, it will have to be done philanthropically." He sees a future in which publications become more specialised, and in which people look to many different sources for different types of news. Most crucial is the fact that people try to come up with new ideas and carry them out, as "the thing that has been missing from journalism and the thing that has got us to this point is a lack of innovation and lack of entrepreneurial spirit."

"One thing we've learnt is that the gap we were created to fill keeps just keeps getting bigger"

And the future for VOSD?

For VOSD, Donohue hopes to grow, and eventually become "a very robust news organization, that serves almost as the metro section of a what a daily paper used to be." Maybe it will not become huge in terms of numbers, as Donohue is aware that the current model may not necessarily support a much larger staff, and "there is something to be said for being a quick, lean and efficient organisation." But as "one thing we've learnt is that the gap we were created to fill keeps just keeps getting bigger," VOSD will strive to keep up with filling that gap, and keep looking for more gaps that the traditional media is leaving behind. It may well not be a model that works everywhere, but VOSD's commitment and success show that it can work, and should be taken seriously by communities whose newspapers have lost their public service arm.

As the economic climate worsens and print advertising decreases, newspapers are struggling to find the dollars to cover their costs. Ethan Zuckerman explores the role of the advertising industry in the media and asks, "what if ad supported journalism is only viable in a world where we radically overvalue the worth of ads?"  

Zuckerman presents the print and early online advertising pricing model, CPM (or cost per thousand) and compares it to how effective advertising is based on its cost, online versus print.  His thesis is that online advertising is much more effective and much cheaper.  Why?  Because online advertising is targeted to those it may appeal to. Example, you are searching a site for the latest books on foreign policy, the ads that pop up are all related to foreign policy books or other sites that feature subjects similar to the one you are searching for.  In contrast, a front page ad of the New York Times will cost you about 10,000 times as much and everyone of the 1 million plus who read it will see it - however, few will actually find it of interest.

To mark the relaunch of the Editors Weblog, the World Editors Forum is running a special series entitled "Doing More with Less." The series highlights major trends that editors-in-chief are using to steer their newsrooms through the difficult economic climate. The fifth in the series takes a look recently revamped Tampa outlets the Tampa Tribune, TBO.com and WFLA 8. 

Media General's Tampa news outlets have been leaders on the path towards integrated newsrooms for years. Now, as the financial situation at American newspapers weakens, the Tampa Tribune, TBO.com and television station WFLA 8 have used essential cuts in staff numbers and resources as an opportunity to go a step further in creating a completely converged newsroom. On November 10 last year, the 'Interactive Newsroom' went into operation, in which all three platforms, print, online and TV, were further combined.  

It is unclear exactly how many staff have been let go, but senior editor Dennis Joyce told the Editors Weblog that so many empty desks were being removed that there was "plenty of room to play football in our newsroom." He described the staff cuts as a "sad development", but as audience editor Susan Newman commented, there is not much time to dwell on missing colleagues as staff still have to get their product out each day.  And Joyce stressed that the developments were "far more" than just a cost-cutting measure: they would have been "a good idea anyway."

Change happened fast. Joyce said that he had "never seen the likes of it", and estimated that the newsroom had been transformed in about 30-45 days. The physical layout has changed, and many staff have been assigned different responsibilities.  Two floors of the news centre are being used for newsgathering, with print editors and television reporters sitting next to each other.

Separation and elimination

The crucial principle underlying the changes is the separation of content generation and distribution within the newsroom structure, while eliminating duplication in both reporting and delivery of news.

Reporters and editors have been divided into 5 work groups known as "circles" that include people from across disciplines and platforms. The 5 circles are:

1. Deadline (the largest)
2. Grassroots
3. Personal Journalism
4. Watchdog
5. Data (the smallest)

Part of the Deadline circle is the "Live Desk", which is the 'air traffic control centre' for the whole newsroom; it knows where all reporters and crews are at all times and what they are working on, so that it can reallocate resources accordingly. The smaller the team, the better, Joyce explained: whenever possible one or two staffers produce content for all platforms. For instance, photo and video operations have been completely converged and all staff now carry "both weapons".  Sometimes print-based reporters are also sent off with a camera too. 

Content then moves to the six "audience editors", new positions created during the last round of reorganisation. The audience editors are comprised of two print experts, two online experts and two television experts. Susan Newman, one of the six who has 22 years of television experience, defined their role as "managing the content and process in the systems to make sure that all of the platforms are publishing content that is relevant for the audience." The group studies audience metrics and "anything else that measures how content is moving online," to establish how people want different types of information at that moment. Assigning resources to stories and deciding on follow-ups is all part of audience editor responsibility, and they make sure that content is not duplicated unnecessarily from platform to platform.

The new audience editors "make sure that all of the platforms are publishing content that is relevant to the audience"

 
Finally, the three platform specific groups of 'finishers' are in charge of taking the content produced by the five circles and allocated by the audience editors, and preparing it for distribution on to the various platforms. As Newman put it, they are "those who have to get the product to the place it needs to be" (copy desk, designers, online producers, TV producers and anchors). Finishing groups must also collaborate to ensure that relevant content is available to other groups in an accessible format. For example, the television group would take a broadcast piece and extract quotes and stills to send to the print group. 

The organisation of the newsroom's day has also been modified, with a new, cross-platform content meeting taking place at 7am each day, at the time when a "huge contingent" of reporters arrive. During this meeting, editors produce outlines of content that will be in the print edition the following day and on television that evening, and make sure they are taking advantage of their online audience during the key 7am-4pm period. Previously, this outline evolved gradually during the morning. The last editorial meeting of the day is at 3.30pm, when the focus truly switches to the following day's work.
 
Newman emphasised the greater efficiency within the newsroom as levels of senior management have been eliminated. "When you do want to make a change you can make it happen so much more quickly than before because there are fewer people who need to sign off on decision making." The audience editors report directly to the news leadership group, who are the three managing editors for print, online and television.

Increasingly local focus

In conjunction with reforming management of content, the focus of content has also come under scrutiny. Local news coverage is on the up. Joyce explained, "Local is pretty much where we believe our future is. The unique content that will make us valuable to our audience increasingly appears to be local news, as the audience will not get that anywhere else. That is definitely our focus." Newman added that if they do cover national news, they find the "local spin on it." She mentioned the special community pages on TBO.com for which they do "micro-reporting" in different Tampa communities and encourage user-generated content. The website allows comments on every story, and reporters sometimes use information conveyed in comments to spark further story development.

"Local is pretty much where we believe our future is, as the audience will not get that anywhere else."

Enthusisastic staff response

Reactions from staff have been generally positive, Joyce explained. "Had it been an undertaking done outside these economic times we probably would have had more angst. But when you consider the amount of staff reductions and layoffs that we have had recently, a news centre reorganization is seen in an entirely different light, people are now happy to have jobs." When it comes to integration, the group is already "way ahead" when it comes to accepting that breaking news online is essential, and people have been trained for years to learn the skills needed for working on other platforms. Newman added that people are adapting well: "There isn't a journalist who works for this company who doesn't understand that it's not about being platform specific anymore."

Success?

The obvious question that springs to mind is: is this new system going to work? Can a newsroom compensate for staff cuts and diminishing resources by reorganising? Other local newspapers are undoubtedly watching closely to see whether they should follow suit. According to Newman, "we are doing better content now, and we are not missing things," stressing that the newsroom is "giving the audience the content in the way that it will be able to consume it." However, the Tampa outlets are in a relatively "unique" situation, Joyce emphasised, as they consist of the number one local newspaper in the area, and the number one local television station. So compared with a print publication which is frantically trying to train staff to produce video for its website, they already have access to top videographers from the television side.  In light of current financial problems across the industry, maximising on available resources and avoiding overlap definitely makes sense.

One potential problem could be that the generalised nature of content gathering risks eliminating any possibility of the three publications having a unique voice. But if the finishers are good enough this should not be a problem. It is too early to offer any kind of verdict on the Tampa outlets' forward-thinking approach, but their willingness to innovate and make the necessary changes to make the best use of what they have shows that they have sufficient ambition and determination to survive.  As Executive Editor Janet Coats put it, "we are here to stay."

In a memo by CEO John Ridding, citing "deeper integration of print and online teams" and "the launch of new digital publications" as new priorities for 2009, The Financial Times Group announced another 80 redundancies, including 20 journalists, across its staff worldwide.

The Readership Institute released a study, including 100 US newspaper markets, to tally Reader Behaviour Scores between 2000-2008.  

Use of newspaper web sites was measured using a self-reported metric called SUM (Site Usage Measure). Individual online "experiences" with newspaper sites were analyzed. Web newspaper consumption and a newspaper site's social involvement were also studied.

For more details, here is the PDF document.

Source: Readership.org throough IFRA Executive News Service

Advertisers continue to spend a fraction of their online ad expenditure on video ads, even when millions of people watch online videos every day, but the business model for online video is starting to emerge. Editors are still seeking the most effective formats for online advertising.  

According to MediaShift, online video ads are "ready to bloom" thanks to:

-audience and ad inventory exploding on sites like Hulu or CNN Online
-standard advertising guidelines created by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) that would unify advertisers
-Google allowing longer independent films on YouTube to increase professional quality of content and allowing video producers to sell their ads
-small and medium businesses (SMBs) began using video ads, thanks to online Yellow Pages, Google's AdSense and video production start-ups like PixelFish and TurnHere

Short one-minute videos, similar to TV ads and infomercials, may sometimes be more effective for small businesses that don't have the resources to produce their own video ads. Video production companies like TurnHere provide documentary type video profiles created by independent producers.  

PixelFish, a popular video production company, has had 20 % average revenue increase every month in 2008, according to John McIntyre, CEO.

Video ad formats: pre-roll or not?

Video ads are interesting for newspapers, according to Eric Janssen, online director of Memphis newspaper Commercial Appeal. His newspaper has used various advertising formats but he said "advertorial formats work better from a selling perspective."

Bur advertisers "cringe" at the thought of investing 10 % in online video ads, even though they spend "thousands of dollars into TV without any real way to measure the effectiveness."

Short clips tend to work better with "non-interruptive" interactive overlays while longer clips tend to work better with pre-rolls.

Steve Safran, senior vice president of media consultancy group AR & D's Media 2.0 division, said that "pre-roll is dying." He mentioned that "overlays are an improvement" since they target viewers based on what they watch. "The way to sell video is by the demographic, one viewer at a time," he said.

As internet revenue for newspapers grows and their Web-based audience increases, it seems strange that advertisers don't follow, especially during the current newspaper ad revenue crisis.

Source: MediaShift

See also:

Ad-blocking software may threaten $40-billion-a-year online ad industry
US: The troubled economics of online advertising

Newspaper websites saw the average time spent per person on their sites dwindle in May year-over-year comparisons.

The Wall Street Journal online fell to about 8-and-a-half minutes last month, from 15 in May 2007. Boston.com's average time spent per visitor dropped to 9 minutes and 39 seconds versus more than 18 minutes in May '07. And the website of the Chicago Tribune is down to about 8 and half minutes -- from 17 minutes a year ago.

There were some notable exceptions: the average time per person more than doubled at the Detroit Free Press website to almost 13 minutes. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer web site also doubled from about seven minutes in May 2007 to more than 15 minutes in May 2008.

You can view more complete results of the May Nielsen numbers here.

Nielsen Online measures the average time spent per person over the course of month (a change from their previous measure of page views), however, not all agree that this is the best metric for assessing news sites.

Primarily, because "time spent" doesn't gauge engagement. "Anybody who browses with several open tabs, or walked away from their computer knows how big a mistake it would be to assume that, just because the website is open, someone is actually paying attention," said Bryan Eisenberg, an online marketing and marketing analytics expert.

Limor Peer, research director of the Readership Institute, wrote about the conundrum in May.
 
"In our recent work with teens and young adults we heard many times that they go to news sites to get the news. That's it. They're not interested in spending time on these sites doing anything else. If that's the case...newspaper sites are at a disadvantage compared to many other sites when it comes to how much time people spend on them," explains Peer. "Shouldn't these sites be measured in terms of how well they serve their audience? How quickly people can find what they're looking for? How well they lay out issues, or provide added value to the news of the day with digests, timelines, maps, data banks, etc.? Just because you can measure time spent...doesn't mean you should, or that you only rely on that measurement. Newspaper sites are in essence trying to compete in a race that is not their own, and risk handicapping themselves by letting others define them."

Sources: Editor & Publisher, Readership Institute

The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News are facing criticism after
both papers ran fictitious ads promoting the airline "Derrie-Air."

The ads, which touted Derrie-Air as "the world's only carbon-neutral luxury airline" and claimed to charge passengers by the pound, was designed to test ad's click-through rates. The Derrie-Air advertisements drew in a 1.25% "click-through" rate for the online version, compared to the national click-through average of 0.05%.

Some in the journalism community have raised concerns over how the ads may adversely affect the papers' credibility.

"Anytime you deceive your audience, you run the risk of compromising their ability to trust you," said Kelly McBride, Poynter ethics group leader.

"Market research is a good goal in terms of understanding how advertising is going to work in this era," she continued. "I wonder if there is a way to do that that doesn't deceive the audience. Is there something you could create that could measure responses without tricking the audience?"

Clint Brewer, president of the Society of Professional Journalists and executive editor of The City Paper in Nashville, Tenn., worried that a false ad might spark distrust in the news product. "My concern would be, given how thirsty the public is for affordable air travel, if readers were to be miffed about this being false, would they then transfer those feelings to the news side of the papers?" he said. "I would be concerned if I was in those newsrooms."

Source: Editor & Publisher