Image 01

Jessica Kerman

digital journalist

Archive for January, 2010

Should other newspapers follow the New York Times?

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

The New York Times Company announced today that it would start charging for unlimited content on its Web site. While details are still fuzzy, the company hopes its “metered model” will provide a second revenue stream. According to the Wall Street Journal,

Other major newspaper publishers have announced similar plans, with News Corp. Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch saying recently that his company would begin charging online for news content across its stable of media properties.

News Corp. owns The Wall Street Journal, one of the few newspapers that have been able to maintain an online subscription business. The Financial Times, owned by Pearson PLC, has also had success with a metered model for charging online, leading some observers to conclude that financial news can generate subscription fees on the Web and general interest news can’t.

Times executives have been weighing the merits of a pay model for years, but their latest efforts began in earnest early last year, as the company struggled through a first quarter in which it posted a $75 million loss. Around that time, executives analyzed more than 30 businesses that charged for at least some of their Web material, including ESPN, Weight Watchers and Consumer Reports.

They concluded that the Times made more money from advertising on its mostly free Web site than most of the outlets it studied made from readers and advertisers combined. The company doesn’t break out its online revenue in detail, but people familiar with the matter say nytimes.com brings in more than $100 million annually from Web display ads.

But is this really the right decision for the New York Times, and should other newspapers follow. According to this Forrester report, no. In fact, the report found that 80 percent of the people surveyed would not pay to access articles on newspaper Web sites. Alienating the audience is not the way to get a second revenue stream.

Instead, the companies should be focusing on investing within and making the articles worth paying for before they go and start charging. I know that takes a long process, but it HAS to be done before they can move into a different model.

Passion

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

When I was an undergraduate, one of my professors told me that the non-news blogs and Web sites I read regularly are much more important the newsy ones. The reason was because news doesn’t happen at news organizations, it happens on those other sites. News just centralizes the information from these other sites.

The problem for me at that time was that I read nothing but news…constantly. My favorite Web site was CNN.com, and I didn’t really read blogs religiously. Outside of that, the time I spent online was used to do work– look up information, e-mail people and friends, etc. I really didn’t think of the Internet as a place to hang out, and I was so involved in news that I had no where else to go but news sites.

Now, things have changed. I’ve found myself attracted to some humorous blogs and I follow some pretty interesting people on Twitter. Also, I think the way people post on social media sites has changed in the past year or so. More people are posting information and less “going to sleep” statuses.

However, I’m not sure I’m getting what I was supposed to (or at least what the professor expected) out of these sites. Instead, I’ve really been thinking about why I continue to go back to those sites regularly. What are they doing that is attracting me and the millions of others who look at them daily?

Here are few reasons I think readers return to these sites:

  1. The writers have a voice. I connect to the writers of the blogs I read because I can picture them talking to me and telling me the story of the day.
  2. The site is updated with new content. I don’t mean just a summary of something they saw on another site, but actual new content for the world to see. Original and creative….They add another perspective.
  3. Lots of pictures. I know as a writer, I should be looking at other writer sites, but I really love blogs such as Cake Wrecks and Probably Bad News more than text-based sites (like mine). It’s not that the pictures are great quality as much as they attract my attention because of what they are pictures of. On Cake Wrecks, for example, you could easily look at the blog reading a word the author writes and still be entertained. It’s like when you read a magazine at the gym. You’re not really reading the magazine (if you are, you’re not working out), you’re just looking at the pictures because they distract you from the task at hand.

I’ve always hated the idea of a news writer adding voice into a story, but I’m starting to see why some news organizations are testing it out. I think though that one of the reasons these sites are great is because the people who are hosting them are PASSIONATE about the subject matter. Have you ever noticed that the quality of news writing went down after newsrooms started looking for general assignment reporters? I, for example, loved politics. You could tell in my stories that I enjoyed the things that go on in politics. My writing was more poignant, and the stories had more sources and more diversity in them because of that same passion. On the other hand, I really disliked covering the weather, and you could tell. It’s not that I disliked covering events that happened becuase of the weather, but I hated just writing a story about the fact that it snowed that day. The stories like “it snowed yesterday” are never written as well as the ones done about real news.The real news is how I judge news sources too…I believe a news organization is trustworthy if I consistently see them striving for true investigative journalism, and not just the obvious facts.

Maybe that’s where news organizations went wrong…they dumbed it down so much that they lost their credibility and authority in the process.

Journalism 2010

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

I loved this post from Gina Chen last week from her blog. In it, she lists her 10 hopes for journalists for the year. Specifically, I must say she is spot on when she says that journalists need to realize that the downfall of newspapers is not just the economy. She went on to say that the economic recession hastened the decline; however, in a way, that could be good for newspapers. They need to find a solution to their problems, but they wouldn’t have really started unless something like this happened.

I also love her third point.

If you’re treating social media use like this weird techie thing, you’re not embracing it. You’re not figuring out how to use it for journalism. That’s a shame and a missed opportunity. Journalists should be leading in how to use and explain social media to readers, not sitting on the sidelines bragging that you don’t get social media as if that’s something to be proud of.

While I didn’t quite mind writing a story about churches using Facebook to capture a non-church-going audience, I was always questioning whether it was old news to the readers— especially coming from a publication like AnnArbor.com because they were using Facebook and Twitter to get to their readers already.