A few early mammals grew big enough to prey on certain unlucky young dinosaurs. So says a science report in the New York Times this morning. News of the dog-sized mammals is apt enough as a metaphor when you think about the Times and the Internet. But why care? Well, even some uppity bloggers often rely on the Times as a starting point for their commentaries. If nothing else, do we really want the likes of Fox News or Armstrong Williams setting the agenda for the media?
But can the Times survive long term? Not if the wrong mindset prevails. In The Future of the New York Times, BusinessWeek says Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. worries that that too many readers have learned to enjoy quality news for free. His paper may soon start charging spoiled readers for existing offerings on the Net. Sulzberger even dreams of some cyber-freeloaders not just paying for the Times online but also subscribing to the paper edition. Let’s hope he stops his nostalgic moralizing. While I’ll focus on the Times in offering some constructive suggestions below, many of my comments would apply to publishers at other newspapers caught up in the information-yearns-to-cost craze.
Sulzberger himself should worry more about corporate earnings and less about the percentage of paying subscribers vs. freeloaders. The current $480-a-year subscription for a print edition is half the price of a decent PC, and even a reduced rate will alienate many online readers, including wealthy ones.
Instead of gouging, Sulzberger should go after both the freeloaders and paying subscribers while keeping the costs reasonable for the latter. Readers cherish the New York Times, yes. But it is not as essential to their daily routines as the Wall Street Journal is to the business world. In place of expensive nostalgia, here is how Sulzberger should respond to dog-sized mammals:
Idea #1: Become a mammal
Recognize that the Times can change from a dino to a very big mammal if it stops thinking like the former. The paper already has one of the most popular news sites on the net. Sulzberger should rejoice mightily in his digital operations’ $17.3 million net on $53.1 million in revenue with the Boston Globe included. Most of the newspaper’s readers see the Times online even if 90 percent of revenue–not earnings–is from the paper side.
The Net is far, far more efficient as a way to reach advertisers’ targets over a wide geographical area than paper is. Almost half the weekday readers are outside New York City, which, with changing demographics, such as more non-English speakers, holds less appeal to an elite publication. Globally and nationally, the Net side can expand to reach the elite without cranking up expensive circulation operations or buying printing presses or worrying about postage.
Idea #2: Do a classy mini tabloid–maybe even a freebie
Offer not just the regular printed version of the paper but a much smaller, less expensive version–perhaps even an ad-supported freebie–with lively summaries of stories from the Times Web site. This compact tabloid would be aggressively promoted in high-income areas and printed and mailed out from printing plants at local newspapers and other contractors. It might also appear as an insert in local papers, just as the Wall Street Journal offers inserts.
The mini paper version of the Time would allow people to browse the essence of a number of items on paper in a hurry, and then they could zero in on Web content of interest to them–keying in short, easy-to-enter Web addresses of Times sections.
Overseas, the same idea could work in certain cities as Net usage grew.
I know. The proud Sulzbergers at first may bristle at idea of the paper Times being free or discounted even in a compact form; isn’t quality supposed to cost? But what if heresy is good for profits? I’m committed to reading relevant stories from the Times, but not for $480 a year, and many would feel the same way.
Idea #3: Create full-strength databases for citizen-consumers
Recognize that the typical Internet user often relies on the Net as a database to satisfy needs of the moment–as opposed to making a vast commitment of time each day to wade through one particular newspaper in hopes that they just might find must-have information. I’m not the first to suggest the database orientation. Will the Times Get It?
Ideally it could build up elaborate databases on topics ranging from household electronics to investment advice and health matters and also include content from first-rate partners. And, no, I’m not talking about databases for readers as consumers–but also as citizens. Local environmentalists should be able to turn to the Times databases, for example, to learn about toxic chemicals and the companies behind them. Similarly corporations should be able to rely on the Times for information useful to their side.
With the database approach, imagine the possibilities here for targeted advertising, including the issue-oriented variety, as opposed to the helter-skelter variety that subscribers of the paper Times encounter. Even the advertising in the online Times is not as precisely aimed as these directories would be. Are we somewhat in Google territory in pondering alternatives? Of course, but what’s wrong with that? What’s more, Google doesn’t serve up its content in the same credible environment that the Times does. It is at the mercy of the sites to which it links. Judicious linking and the use of content from good partners won’t matter, but Google is all about links.
The Times’ paying subscribers in the top tier of databases customers–just please don’t expect them to cough up the same $480 a year that print subscribers do for all that newsprint and ink!–would have access to every single word from the Times including those from existing archives. Readers paying less or nothing would be able to see only stories for the last three months, perhaps, or the last year.
Granted, some at the Times would worry about reduced income from, say, Lexis-Nexis, but so what? The real future is in promoting and offering database-style content to individual subscribers, businesses and institutions directly. The Times is already charging for archive-related content, but not offering consumers an all-you-can-eat option for a reasonable fee. It should start doing so and play to its strengths as a “paper of record.”
Idea #4: Closer ties with the blogging community
Plug more closely into the blog circuit. In a dream world for the old media, blogs wouldn’t exist. But they do, and the Times Web site would do well to try to include links to relevant blog items and other outside sources at the end of each story on issues of major interest. This already happens to an extent, but let’s see more of this.
Yes, the linkees and target items should be selected with care, and the normal disclaimers should appear to show that the Times is simply providing a diversity of opinion, as opposed to endorsing the views of the bloggers. News stories themselves should remain as neutral as the editorial side can make them. This way, readers will get the best of both worlds–the information from the Times and the opinions from the bloggers. Featured links can also go to relevant items from Times columnists.
The Times could also create its own blog-related communities. The Greensboro News & Record is an interesting example of the possibilities, even though the Times could be more selective in the links it featured. Like it or not, even the best of the news reporters cannot be as well informed as bloggers in specialized areas.
In my own little area of e-books I’ve found the Technology section of the Times to be less clueful than it should be about the vanishing books on the Librie or the Tower of eBabel. It is also insufficiently skeptical of the Open eBook Forum dominated by the likes of Microsoft and Adobe.
Idea #5: Use a reader-friendly, nonproprietary format for downloadable editions of the full Times
Keep selling downloadable complete editions of the paper, but do so in a nonproprietary format that is easier to read on tablets and Pocket PCs than the current approach is. Given the awkwardness of scrolling around, I’m hardly surprised that the Times’ NewsStand version is an underperformer. OpenReader would display far better on mobile devices and, being a nonproprietary format, would eliminate recurring costs. If NewsStand wants to adopt OpenReader, so much the better.
I’m not disinterested as a founder of the OpenReader Consortium, but, really, the choice of OpenReader for encapsulated editions is a no-brainer. It builds on nonproprietary standards at the production level developed by Open eBook Forum, which lacks the guts to do a true consumer format. None other than Victor McCrary, who made a name for himself as an energetic and intelligent promoter of e-book standards while at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has endorsed the basic OpenReader concept. So have leading Internet e-book retailers–Fictionwise, eBooks.com and eBookAd. Check out OpenReader’s feature set, for which we’ll welcome suggestions from the news business.
Idea #6: More video on the Times’ Web site
The Times Web site still isn’t enough of a multimedia animal. The newspaper should recycle video content from its cable TV programs to the newspaper’s Web site to add to the richness of the multimedia there–both daily editions and database content. If the Discovery cable network bails out, then so be it. Nielsen/NetRatings, according to BusinessWeek, says a mere 27,000 people watch Discovery Times. Needless to say, the Times’ Web videos could be archived forever and would be increasingly valuable as TVs and computers converged. Charge for most videos until bandwidth costs come down sufficiently to offer large numbers of them for free.
Idea #7: Reply more on partners for news-gathering, while continuing staff expansion in strong areas
Keep expanding the news staff, but recognize that in many specialized fields, it actually would make more sense at times to work with carefully chosen partners observing the Times’ journalistic standards. Can the Times on its own truly keep up to date on the latest in nanotechnology? Better that it focus on coverage areas–for example, political news and culture–where it is already strong. Even the Times can’t afford to do everything.
Idea #8: Don’t give up entirely on the inner city
As a bleeding heart, I’d love to see the Times care about serving the inner-city plebes. Isn’t there at least a little money in it? Granted, the Times should not go in for tacky Hollywood news and ape the New York Post, but can’t it experiment with small, ad-supported neighorhood oriented weeklies and related Web sites–perhaps some in Spanish? I don’t see an immense fortune to be made here, but it would be one way for the Times to stay in touch with the city it claims to be so ardent about championing. Who knows, the weeklies could even be farm teams for prospective minority hires for the Times.
Update, 3:27 a.m., Feb. 21, 2005: The Washington Post, of course, is one of the publications to which the above thoughts might apply at least in part. The little tabloid that the Post puts out is useless to me–a pathetic effort to please young readers.
What, however, if the Post did it right with an ad-supported, Net-oriented tabloid that in a timely way captured the essence of both the Washington Post and the Internet–for example, the local blogging circuit? The abbreviated version could go to people like me who have said no to gratituous solid waste. The Post could deliver the improve lite version to homes in well-wired neighborhoods, not just make it available on newsstands.
Finally a word on archives: Years ago, along with others, I suggested that newspapers might actually be better off not charging fees for old articles–relying instead on ads. If the Times or the Post wants to offer just in-house content rather than detailed consumer news and extras from partners, “free” might indeed be the way to go for everything, not just the most recent isssues.
