Change is a necessity

Perhaps the hardest thing to do in the run up to the Daily Telegraph’s radical integration was to convince the paper’s staff. Lewis explained how in meetings his suggestions would constantly be voiced but most would be politely blown off. So he put all of his efforts into convincing his colleagues. He embarked on a worldwide tour, visiting the United States, Latin America, Japan, and Europe to learn about the best practices and initiatives in each place. He returned to London with some fantastic ideas.

Then he set out to convince the staff. He found the newsroom’s “angriest” employees, people that had realized the need for change in the past or had had other complaints ignored. When he got these people on his side, the rest of the staff paid closer attention and management eventually decided to heed Lewis’ advice.

The challenges the Telegraph, as well as papers around the world, face were monstrous:

-    To continue producing a paper of the same quality, if not better, while uprooting the entrenched mentality of the traditional newsroom
-    To seize the opportunity that digital presents both editorially and commercially
-    To spread best and scrap bad practices
-    To rise to the challenge from new competitors, essentially every publication on the Web

The first step to coping with these challenges was to congregate journalists, editors, photographers, the production team, etc., on one floor, in a wide open office space. Fortunately, the Telegraph found that the largest area like this in Central London was available.

To test the new newsroom dynamic, the paper started with the business desk, bringing its staff over and experimenting with various designs. The shape of the tables where people sat were very important and after rigorous examination, Lewis and Co. settled on a “hub and spoke” model: a central round-table desk where all the decision makers sit and from which the 11 sections of the paper radiate, including both the section’s print and online staff. In fact, no distinction was made between print and online journalists; everyone played a bit of a role in each function.

When this important aspect of integration was sorted, a training program was developed for the paper’s entire staff. Each week, a team of journalists who didn’t necessarily know each other because their offices at one time had been separated, would begin a five-day training course with the aim of providing a general overview as to how their jobs were changing and the skills they would be expected to learn over time. On Friday, the training team was charged with putting out a mock section of the paper, complete with video and audio, and other content destined for the Web.  

Through the pilot newsroom and the training courses, the paper learned that:

-    Changing the layout and organizational structure works
-    A core team committed to the project was essential
-    Training was a key change agent
-    Workflow changes were essential to enable the move towards a multi-media future
-    Communication among staff was essential

Lewis admitted that this might not be the route that all papers should take. But seeing the numbers, the satisfaction of the paper’s loyalists, and the fact that the paper’s readership is better than ever because its website is now the UK’s most popular national quality site, he concluded with a smile that it had certainly worked for the Telegraph.  



Gannett goes local with the Information Center

America’s primary integration example in 2006 came from the country’s largest publisher, Gannett. Michael Maness joined the conference. He started by explaining how audiences have changed. Traditional media consumers are what Gannett likes to call a “lean back audience,” meaning that they don’t really engage with the news product, they just sit back and read the newspaper or watch the nightly news. What the Internet has done by giving all individuals the option of publishing original material and interacting with other media, is create a “lean forward audience.”

The problem that arises from these two groups are two fold:
1.    traditional media has forever made its money off of the “lean back” group
2.    the two groups of media consumers have little to do with one another

Reflecting this problem, Maness talked of “media shifting” and what he likes to call “size shifting” that are scaring traditional publishers.

Media shifting is key with lean forward types; it means that they’re using various technologies to consume media the way they want, when they want. He used the example of Tivo, a digital video recorder which can be easily programmed to record any number of television shows that can then be watched at the convenience of the viewer. The major problem with Tivo is that it allows viewers to skip through the show’s advertisements.

 “Size shifting” means that people are actually changing media to fit a smaller time frame. For instance, people will record a television program, take out the parts that most interest them, edit them together and then post them on YouTube. An hour long program can thus be summed up in 10 minutes if need be.

Obviously technologies such as these have major implications for traditional media companies. But Maness displayed a quote from Eric Garland of Big Champagne LLC urging these publishers to embrace technology:

“If traditional media companies don’t participate in emerging technologies, then the pirate market will serve that audience.”

The future is pro-am journalism

Maness is convinced that the future of newspaper journalism lies in a mix of professional content with amateur contributions. The pro-am approach is more democratic, it engages the community and brings more voices into the news. Along that line, Gannett studies also found that subjectivity is the new norm. Whereas most American papers purport to be objective in their reporting, publishing a number of opposing opinions on the same topic is what the audience craves; the array of subjectivity ultimately results in objectivity. And with more voices, the paper becomes more trusted.

Getting back to the grassroots

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of the integration in Gannett’s newsrooms is the reconnection with the community. Not only are Gannett journalists welcoming reader commentary on their articles, conversing with them through forums, and getting out on the town with “mojos” or mobile journalists, they are also soliciting their readers for information, a process known as “crowdsourcing.”

Gannett found that by giving readers the tools, they’ll be able to contribute all types of information that journalists would not have the time or the sheer luck to uncover. For example, tips from readers breaking major stories have increased and it’s easy for them to send in original documents that can be uploaded onto a paper’s website to complement an article.

In taking this pro-am approach, Gannett no longer calls its newsrooms as such; rather they are now known as “Information Centers.” 7 primary functions were isolated for the centers:

1.    Digital
2.    Strong community watchdog function across all platforms
3.    Vital local effort reconnecting to communities
4.    Data that includes rich calendar listings, community events, etc.
5.    Community conversation
6.    Customized content
7.    Multimedia

The approach of America’s largest publisher has been hailed by many and criticized by others. Maness obviously chose a positive quote from media commentator and Center for Citizen Media director Dan Gillmor: “The company’s move is pathbreaking. It will just possibly change the newspaper industry, in a good way, forever.”

With all of its newsrooms will make the final conversion to being Information Centers by May 1st, Gannett is well worth keeping an eye on.