WSJ to become Web-influenced Journal 3.0
Posted by Maddie Hanna on June 1, 2006 at 11:43 AM
A print edition designed with online features in mind: that’s the future of The Wall Street Journal, and it’s called Journal 3.0. L. Gordon Crovitz, three months of running The Journal’s print and online operations under his belt, is behind the Web-centric plan.
The Journal has already taken into account Web readership patterns and incorporated certain elements into its print edition, but Journal 3.0 looks to go even further. Potential changes include smaller editions, more “what it means” stories and themed content.
Others in the media think it’s a smart move.
- Eric Blankfein, senior VP-director of communication-channel planning at Horizon Media: “I’ve been saying this for a while now, but print — newspapers especially — needs to embrace marriage with the Web to remain viable and dynamic. The fact that The Wall Street Journal is a successful paid site lends itself to the daily adopting certain elements in order to remain fresh. This is likely a good example of a newspaper merging assets in order to make both products more valuable to advertisers and readers alike.”
- George Janson, managing partner and director of print, Mediaedge:cia: “There is a multitude of ways that print and online versions can supplement rather than supplant one another.”
Source: Advertising Age
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: WSJ to become Web-influenced Journal 3.0.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4174
The solution has to be for newspapers to focus on providing quality journalism, editorial and analysis. Attention to genuinely fair and balanced reporting and analysis will make the newspapers more valuable to consumers than online content - until the online players have the capacity to deliver this as well.
Giveaways demonstrate disrespect for consumers as do price wars. This challenge is not about such things.
There's mistake in the 'rescue' strategies part: De Volkskrant is not involved in the Dutch plans. And in general it is very doubtful that these strategies rescue anything: foreign & non-paper investors who will want their money back with interst within a few years? Mergers which result in sacking journalists and losing readers? Full colour & re-desing which has been going on for years? Paid-for internet sites which will result in lower online readership? Giving away CDs and selling cheap books? Price wars? Where's the rescue? What is recued?
I have an entirely different view.
A committee structure designed to boost efficiency and effectiveness of the current operations, which is what the Journal 3.0 internal memo says, is focussed on the wrong thing. Its like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The problems faced by Dow Jones are similar to those faced by any successful company that is about to be blown out of the water by a disruptive innovation, in this case, primarily web-based information services.
Think of IBM vs mini-computers... DEC vs PCs... Kodak vs digital cameras... Palm vs BlackBerry... Microsoft vs Linux.
In each case, the established and dominant supplier failed to recognize that bigger, more profitable markets could be created based on new disruptive innovations. To be successful, the market disruptor catered to a new set of customers, thought initially to be low-end or marginal and therefore ignored by the incumbent.
It is very difficult for a committee of various stakeholders in the status quo to come up with clean, unbiased views on where the best new growth is available. They will be caught in the classic innovator's dilemma, stuck catering to current customers, preserving their cost structure and business model, seeing their volume whittled away as new competitors steal the low-margin or unattractive customers initially but then swamp out the mainstream.
A small team of creative people, armed with only a small budget, complete independence, and a mandate to create a profitable business quickly, can address these issues faster and better than any task force.
Mike
www.OnDisruption.com