Newspapers don’t need to reinvent the wheel, just package it better27 December 2011 · By Kylie Davis
“You have a delicious cupcake that people love but can only eat every so often,” I told an editor who was asking for advice on how to improve her section and attract a different audience to her publication. “The question is not how you can make a more delicious cupcake or stretch the batter to make it a pie. The question is what else can you put on the menu that will convince people to buy regularly from your bakery?” In the same way that McDonald's now has a healthier-options menu, with salads and wraps, as well as burgers, and in the same way that Coca-Cola has developed iced teas, bottled water and “vitamin drinks,” newspaper companies need to think differently about their markets and the products they are developing in them to expand their appeal. But the mistake too many newspapers continue to make when it comes to product improvement is to assume they need to improve an existing product. This is why we see newspapers that believe the best way to turn a product around and make it more attractive to advertisers is to create more of it: more stories, more pages, more content, all in the same vein of what went before. Readers, the argument goes, will be so impressed with the added newness that they will return in droves to products that they had previously abandoned because they did not have enough time or will power or interest to read. Advertisers, in turn, will be so impressed with the investment we have made in our journalism that they will once again invest the dollars they had previously withdrawn on the basis of not being sure if our products worked. Hmmmm. Doesn't sound like much of a business plan when you write it out like that, does it? Even PowerPoint can't sex it up. Einstein said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. There are days when I worry the entire industry needs a lithium hit. It is thinking like mastheads rather than thinking like product suites that has led us down this path. In the siloed world of Planet Masthead, any new idea is bolted onto the mother ship. There is only one entrance — through the front doors — and one almighty ruler through whom all decisions must be made: the editor. The result is a structure that is a monolith, slow and creaking, difficult to access, impossible to change, and requiring super-human skills from the man (or occasionally woman) at the top. Compare that to the world of product development, which always asks itself, “What do our customers want?” or “What do our customers need?” Good product development is not about incrementally improving something that already exists; it is about looking at how customers use your product, the need it fulfills, and asking whether what you have is really the best way to fulfill that need. Good product development uses knowledge, trends, and influences external to the business — the move to health, changing technology, social media — to influence solutions. It does not seek to dictate the business environment about how clients will engage—but uses customer utility to drive its own internal structure and processes. Good product development never assumes what you have is perfect. It assumes that every day is another opportunity to seek perfection. Good product development analyses the assets that you have—the quality of your engagement, the commitment of your journalists, the reach of your audience—and seeks new ways to package them to touch more people. So how does this play out for newspapers?
Leave a Comment |
About this blog
My name is Kylie Davis, and I'm national real estate editor for News Ltd. in Sydney, Australia, as well as an undergraduate at the AGSM MBA program at the University of New South Wales. I'm passionate about vibrant, creative and entrepreneurial newspapers; about giving oxygen to great journalism; creating connected and engaged communities of readers and advertisers; and smashing down any barriers or closed mindedness that prevents the above. Subscribe Blog archives
April 2012 ( 2 ) Blog roll
Facebook |
3 ways to join INMA: register for an e-newsletter and headlines, become an individual member, or sign up for a corporate membership (unlimited employees) Sign up now
Comments
Bill Garber | Dec 27, 2011 at 9:27 AM
Package to user medium preference as well as to niches into which readers/consumers/persons gather.
Exactly!
John Peterson | Dec 27, 2011 at 10:12 AM
The real franchise of local newspapers is the collection process and local audience opportunity. Too many papers are making decisions based on their "limitations" not their opportunities.
Where you write "niche" I see local news. People pick up newspapers for information, we shouldn't continue to disappoint them.
Here's a test for publishers. Measure all your local news for one week and then see how your news hole distribution compares with your readership zip codes. Then compare that with the space occupied by the pap you thought people might want to read.
The sizzle for advertisers is proximity and effective circulation. The local paper may not have the most readers but they should have the ones that count.
Amanda Woodard | Dec 27, 2011 at 10:27 PM
I couldn't disagree more with your comments. I find them repeated ad nauseum by people in the media who haven't a clue where journalism is heading and are terrified of going down with the ship. Most of them work at Fairfax, as we both know.
The fact is that journalism is not a product like a cupcake or hamburger and to treat it as if it is, is to fundamentally misunderstand the role that journalism plays in society and, more worryingly, in democracy.
The logic of your argument, dividing up journalism into niche markets of health or technology or cupcake-making and targeting it for an audience means that readers will never chance upon information outside of their "interests". They may know there's a war going on in Syria but they will not understand the reasons for it or care that it's happening. Take a domestic example such as children in detention centres that continues to exist beneath the radar because the media largely ignores it. Readers will certainly never stumble into a story such as that. By separating information into favoured ingredients no one ever gets to see the full menu and democracy is the worse for it.
I'm not against delivering traditional news and features using a variety of new technology: that can only be a good thing but I'm afraid Twitter, Facebook et al, while satisfying a need for immediate information, just don't fill the knowledge gap. Unlike traditional media, they do not digest or reflect on what is going on around us. There is no expertise, no one to analyse and offer opinions and a historical perspective.
For quality journalism to survive there must be an understanding of its value and a commitment to invest in it. Murdoch understands this. He knows the market for quality journalism is still there and his view is that it must be paid for.
There are other people who think that the only way to make a profit from journalism is to pander to the public's insatiable hunger for celebrity and that the trivialising of journalism is the net result of "giving the public what they want". When the News of the World closed after the hacking scandal, 600,000 readers just disappeared. They didn't move to another newspaper, they just left. If that isn't an argument against the dumbing down of journalism, I don't know what is.
Bill Garber | Dec 28, 2011 at 8:09 AM
There is nothing noble about journalism, only journalists.
For quality journalism to survive, it must be perceived as worth paying for by the imbiber of same. This is Murdoch's hope.
The Daily proves the aggregate publisher's commitment can well exceed that of the aggregate subscribers' commitment, so to date The Daily is a fail. It takes more than commitment. It takes ... well ... aggregating subscribers.
So, Murdoch may turn to Kylie before it is all over because he also knows that aggregating subscribers is the sine qua non of successful journalism. And I sense that you do, too.
You two will find my name on LinkedIn, associated with Interlink. Perhaps we'll meet there, too.
Kylie | Dec 28, 2011 at 11:01 PM
Amanda, I think you've misunderstood the point I'm trying to make.
The packaging of journalism is not just about servicing niche markets - or creating niches so small that the bigger picture becomes ignored or distorted and important issues go begging at the expense of what we do now. The packaging of journalism is about creating additional products that give readers (who are not just the people that buy a copy each day) more choice.
In the same way that a newspaper is pulled apart at the family table and sections selected by different family members, online, apps and tablets are giving us unimaginable opportunities to expand our reach and the type of content we're creating. But if our only understanding of how to market it is to create whopping motherships, we will turn more readers off, not lure them in.
The MacDonalds example was intended to show how that company understands that you can't eat hamburgers and thickshakes every day. And they've successfully adjusted their business to accommodate it. (and yes, I understand that few would never want to eat Macdonalds food every day, but the point is that are now other options, not just burgers).
Journalists should keep writing the stories they are passionate about, about issues that matter across every spectrum.
But they should let those experienced in new product development and business startups package those products so that their appeal is expanded.
Too often we see our future being "developed" by well intentioned journalists blooded on news desks who think that an ability to write a 300 word piece on any news topic at all, makes them an expert at everything.
Clive Hopkins | Dec 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Strangely, the cupcake industry seems unaffected by this process.