Why a print edition is a bad idea
This post was written Monday, but backdated as to not burry this week's podcast, which I was late posting, and thus would like to highlight this morning.
The Northwest Voice in Bakersfield California has been the model for My Missourian. In Bakersfield, the Northwest Voice not only operates as an open-source/citizen-journalism website, but it prints a bimonthly print edition, which prints the best content from the web, and more importantly, allows the company to sell print advertising. This print product is the Northwest Voice's cash cow.
The reason that this model made sense is because many print advertisers haven't been willing to go digital. Why? Because we haven't been able to give them something better than what they have in print. Instead of using the full interactive, multi-media capabilities of the web, we've simply placed print ads online (and possibly made them move and flash). We soon found this moving and flashing annoyed online readers. Why couldn't we use this media to enhance the attractiveness of online advertising for readers?
Slowly (very, slowly) we're learning to do this. Amazon announced a novel idea this week, and with the introduction of the new digital edition of the Sunday Missourian Feb. 20, you're going to see that Roger Fidler has produced interactive, layered advertising that is extremely attractive to reader (my favorite part of the prototype is an add for a movie rental business, which integrates a movie tailor into the ad). The buzz is that advertisers that have never been willing to advertise in the newspaper, are interested in this digital format (for good reason). This interactive, layered advertising is going to be a major development in digital advertising.
I also think that BackFence.com is onto a major development, with online tools where advertisers can design simple, cheap advertising on their own. We've also see the potential of "free" online classifieds, where users pay to upload photos and other "value added" content.
So why are we going back to a print edition? It's simply to prolong newspapers reliance on print advertising, while it fails to develop innovative online advertising. This, while more nimble, creative technology companies such as Google claim a larger and larger portion of the advertising pie. It's time that newspapers become competitive in this area or they'll be digging their own graves.
What will make newspapers competitive? Content. That's precisely what Craig's list lacks (though, the scary thing is that Google has figured out a very efficient way to piggyback off the content that others produce). But assuming that content is a competitive edge, newspapers need to couple their content with a innovative online advertising model. The newspapers should also integrate citizen-journalism into their websites. This will encourage the public to both spend more time on their website and identify more with the papers' brand, which suddenly becomes their brand, as well (I hope to test this hypothesis over the course of the next year).
Thus, a print edition of My Missourian is marching down a dangerous path. While it might be profitable in the short-term (and that is important, since it's no secret the Missourian bleeds veryred), we're simply prolonging our demise if we go down this path. Thus, instead of printing a deadwood edition, we should use the resources at our disposal and the momentum of this project to revamp our online presence and reconnect with the community in a very meaningful way.
Online, citizen submitted content should be integrated with staff material (though, clearly labeled). As already stated, this will enhance the public's identity with the newspaper's brand, which will add value for advertisers. These advertisers will also benefit from more interactive, layered ads, which will enhance the usefulness of that content for the reader, making it more successful. The revenue model will also be based on free classifieds. Because readers will be submitting content and advertising, the two parts of this model will reinforce one another.
And, if you're hellbent on putting the citizen content in print, put it in the already existing print newspaper (the Columbia Missourian). It can help fill out those sections where we're light on content (mainly our religion section, which is the strongest component of My Missourian). This integration of content may happen to a degree as part of the new digital format that Fidler is working on, which is a great first step.
Editors note: This post is for the sake of argument, not necessarily because I believe there is absolutely no logic to a print edition. I've been talking to my fellow My Missourian editors. who make some great points in favor of a print edition, and I hope that they'll post some of their comments here.
The Northwest Voice in Bakersfield California has been the model for My Missourian. In Bakersfield, the Northwest Voice not only operates as an open-source/citizen-journalism website, but it prints a bimonthly print edition, which prints the best content from the web, and more importantly, allows the company to sell print advertising. This print product is the Northwest Voice's cash cow.
The reason that this model made sense is because many print advertisers haven't been willing to go digital. Why? Because we haven't been able to give them something better than what they have in print. Instead of using the full interactive, multi-media capabilities of the web, we've simply placed print ads online (and possibly made them move and flash). We soon found this moving and flashing annoyed online readers. Why couldn't we use this media to enhance the attractiveness of online advertising for readers?
Slowly (very, slowly) we're learning to do this. Amazon announced a novel idea this week, and with the introduction of the new digital edition of the Sunday Missourian Feb. 20, you're going to see that Roger Fidler has produced interactive, layered advertising that is extremely attractive to reader (my favorite part of the prototype is an add for a movie rental business, which integrates a movie tailor into the ad). The buzz is that advertisers that have never been willing to advertise in the newspaper, are interested in this digital format (for good reason). This interactive, layered advertising is going to be a major development in digital advertising.
I also think that BackFence.com is onto a major development, with online tools where advertisers can design simple, cheap advertising on their own. We've also see the potential of "free" online classifieds, where users pay to upload photos and other "value added" content.
So why are we going back to a print edition? It's simply to prolong newspapers reliance on print advertising, while it fails to develop innovative online advertising. This, while more nimble, creative technology companies such as Google claim a larger and larger portion of the advertising pie. It's time that newspapers become competitive in this area or they'll be digging their own graves.
What will make newspapers competitive? Content. That's precisely what Craig's list lacks (though, the scary thing is that Google has figured out a very efficient way to piggyback off the content that others produce). But assuming that content is a competitive edge, newspapers need to couple their content with a innovative online advertising model. The newspapers should also integrate citizen-journalism into their websites. This will encourage the public to both spend more time on their website and identify more with the papers' brand, which suddenly becomes their brand, as well (I hope to test this hypothesis over the course of the next year).
Thus, a print edition of My Missourian is marching down a dangerous path. While it might be profitable in the short-term (and that is important, since it's no secret the Missourian bleeds veryred), we're simply prolonging our demise if we go down this path. Thus, instead of printing a deadwood edition, we should use the resources at our disposal and the momentum of this project to revamp our online presence and reconnect with the community in a very meaningful way.
Online, citizen submitted content should be integrated with staff material (though, clearly labeled). As already stated, this will enhance the public's identity with the newspaper's brand, which will add value for advertisers. These advertisers will also benefit from more interactive, layered ads, which will enhance the usefulness of that content for the reader, making it more successful. The revenue model will also be based on free classifieds. Because readers will be submitting content and advertising, the two parts of this model will reinforce one another.
And, if you're hellbent on putting the citizen content in print, put it in the already existing print newspaper (the Columbia Missourian). It can help fill out those sections where we're light on content (mainly our religion section, which is the strongest component of My Missourian). This integration of content may happen to a degree as part of the new digital format that Fidler is working on, which is a great first step.
Editors note: This post is for the sake of argument, not necessarily because I believe there is absolutely no logic to a print edition. I've been talking to my fellow My Missourian editors. who make some great points in favor of a print edition, and I hope that they'll post some of their comments here.
<< Home