its interesting to me that the organizations that should be combining as quickly as they can aren't.
What are the strongest news brands in this country ? Rupert Murdoch would tell you that the Wall Street Journal is at or near the top. You can put the New York Times,Washington Post and others up there as well.. You could probably put Time and Newsweek on the list as well. All are print.
For years the TV networks have spent billions on promotion, people and production to try to create a definable and sustainable brand that drives viewership. In the internet era, it hasn't worked as choice has significantly diluted their audiences.
Cable News Networks have tried to expand the market for news consumption, but really haven't grown beyond niche audiences, with 2mm viewers for any given program being a huge hit.
What I find interesting is how duplicative all their efforts are. Each of the above has a signifcant news departments with reporters out in the field looking to break stories or do a better job of reporting than their competitors, regardless of medium.
Riddle me this Batman: Rupert Murdoch has figured out that Print and TV can be combined to be a vertical news organization and is willing to pay 5 billion dollars to do it. Why has no one else realized the value of combining big news brands and organizations ?
Why isn't a CBS News merging their news department with a NY Times and rebranding itself as the 6pm NY Times News ? Or with Time Magazine News ? Or NBC News and ???
I recognize the arrogance factor. That each wants to be the defacto source of news in this country and lever what little editorial power they still have left (Does anyone other than the people who write editorials or are written about really read the editorials in newspapers these days ?). But its time to realize that drastic change is necessary and that ego needs to be put aside.
Put simply, a NY Times reporter with a camera crew can reach every medium available today. Right now any video that reporter captures is relegated to the net. Instead, that resource could be available to a network news department , the net, heck, even as part of a DVD series or to theaters as part of a weekly series. We would show it at Landmark Theaters.
News should be available to its customers in the medium that its customers demand, and in those customers don't even know they want yet. I know there has been many a time when i have read a Times story thinking that it would be interesting to see video to support the story. Why not ?
This post is a long way of saying that I think news is a unique opportunity still. But what is happening is that everyone is cutting back individual news operations rather than partnering to ramp up. Consumers dont need more brands, they need more indepth reporting of more stories.
Its time for convergence of mediums. The NY TImes 6pm News on CBS makes a lot more sense to me that teleprompter reading by talking heads with nice legs. As Dan Rather often says, its time for news "with Guts"
While on the topic of news, 2 quick thoughts:
1. One of the biggest all time product branding blunders in any business is newspaper columnists and reporters calling what they write on the web a blog. When you have a reporter in the field offering online updates and you call it a blog, you define them as peers of the many unwashed masses who post on a blog, myself included. Suzy and Don on myspace have a blog, and so does your intrepid reporter. Its not too late to come up with a name to brand what professionals call their timely infield updates. Its the only way you are going to differentiate your news organization from user generated content.
2. I was trying to remember the last time I heard a question from a sports reporter before or after a game or event when i thought to myself "What a great question". Why ?
Newspapers, TV and the Net - Its Convergence Time
Recent Posts
- Beating Google ? (5/14/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. When is the last time you heard a reporter of any kind ask a "great" question?
Posted at 9:44AM on May 21st 2007 by David
23. Nice points. i Think that the polarization in the USA is partly b/c of the major news media badgering readers into what is news and why the the public needs to listen. A horizontal purchase approach would accelerate this technique using the "real" news sources as the brand. Persoanlly i cannot stomach CNN or FOX news, too graphic, too flashy, too polarized. The nytimes is an English newspaper i enjoy reading however, and even to the point where i go to the slow churning nytimes.com site over major - cable networks online. Think about it, why would a cable service necessarily have a better on-line site? Cable news... stinks. SO i agree on convergence, but i also feel it is happening faster than most realize, i for one no longer watch tv unless its sports or movies. I think that the internet is much more exciting and balance of that and print are where most people want to be. Even that will change however and of course all three will "converge." sooner than we all expect.
http://ThunkDifferent.com
24. #2 - I think the main reason you don't have that "wow" factor with sports reporting is due to the nature of sports writers themselves. In my experience you have a lot of writers who do not want to go out of the box to ask a more technical or possibly sensational question so they do not fell any repercussion if the question is not answered well. If you ask something tough, you have the chance that the athlete/coach will turn on you and become hostile or not answer your questions in the future. Or conversely, the question is answered and the audience does not understand question or answer...so why bother possibly sticking out and failing when you can lob softball after softball and become the "friend" of an athlete or coach.
25. Bloomberg - awesome internet/field reporting, awesome tv reporting.
ESPN - awesome tv, awesome internet, could be awesome print if they did a daily instead of weekly.
It's being done, but not in "general" news. Has to be a specific subject in order to be a "must see" station or website; if general and not specific, your smattering of all-encompassing headline subject matter is just as easily gathered at a multitude of news aggregation sites.
26. I don't know that Murdoch is really trying to fuse together print and TV as much as he's looking for a lifeboat to jump into as the web (and DVRs) nail both. Also, your idea for dual branding sounds interesting on the surface, but I tend to agree with Al Ries when he cites the problems with such a strategy in this article: http://adage.com/columns/article.php?article_id=116647
Finally, regarding your "great question" point... Come on! I tend to think you're more like Bobby Knight when it comes to the media. In hindsight, can you honestly think of any questions you *wish* a reporter would have asked you, especially those you would have deemed "good questions"?!
Posted at 12:46PM on May 21st 2007 by Joe Wikert
28. Hmm. As a employee of the incredible shrinking multimedia Tribune empire, I only wish what you say were true. I don't disagree with your premise, but I think the results seen in the marketplace suggest that neither we nor anyone else has figured out how to find many real synergies. Not only are the capabilities of the various forms of media different, the audiences' demands are different, and the institutional histories are different.
BTW, we label blogs "blogs" as a not-terribly-effective means to segment opinion-ish stuff (what's in many of the blogs) from news. I'd agree that you could do a blog without injecting opinion, and if you did, there wouldn't be any reason to differentiate it from other stuff on the site.
Posted at 2:19PM on May 21st 2007 by Jon Healey
29. In regards to the interview questions presented to athletes and coaches, most of the time the interviewee doesn't answer the question they are asked in the first place because they are too busy trying to give bland answers full of sport cliches that we have all heard a million times. In some cases when that is not seen, then the interviewee is either trying to deny the facts of the game or push their own personal agenda.
So in these cases if I were a reporter, I wouldn't bother putting any effort into preparing out of the box or specialized quesions because it won't get answered anyway.
For the few personalities that have personality and opinions, when they choose to present it during interviews - they are constantly critized by the media and/or become an hour worth of dialogue on sport radio/tv. They also risk fines, lawsuits, demoralization, and tons of public scrutiny. So in this case - I would probably become another boring shell of an athlete and avoid answering interview questions, creating a vicious circle of pointless sport coverage.
Posted at 2:31PM on May 21st 2007 by Diane
30. I agree with the value of combining newspapers and TV. I mostly read news online. Local Tv content is not that well presented online. I do watch some local content besides movies on my 46 inch HDTV. Often since I am a paraglider and interested in local weather , all I watch on TV is the local weather forecast( better than info in newpapers). However for soaring aviation and paragliding , I can get more detailed info on the internet. The more niche the content the better the internet appears to provide specialized news. I would like a best of breed news application that feeds my computer, my TV, my smartphone and last a printed newpaperversion.
I can zero in on the news I am most interested in more quickly on computer and newspaper or DVR news on TV and fast forward to part I want to watch. Comcast in Seattle also has news on demand.
It seems that weather channel has figured out how to create extend TV online with additional layers and choise for infromation.
A best of breed approach appeals to me for my news consumption. Often after reading news online, TV and newspaper are not "news" to me..
Posted at 4:53PM on May 21st 2007 by John Clifford
31. Mark, great insight as usual. What these newspapers and TV news departments, and BTW, even online bloggers sometimes, don't seem to realize is that their perception of what business they are in is outdated. Newspapers are not in the news paper business, nor TV news departments in the TV news hour business. They are all in the business of delivering ads and news simultaneously to viewers [print viewers, TV viewers, Web page viewers,...].
Once they realize that their real competition has just gotten way bigger that they had understood [Rupert Murdoch as usual is ahead of the crowd here], consolidation is a natural thing to occur. Pride and belief in tradition [as one of the commenters pointed out] will retard this process, but in the end economics will ensure it.
As to the number of independent viewpoints consolidating to a few "mega" companies, I am skeptical about this fear (1) instant publishing and blogging will ensure that independent viewpoints will always be heard and seen, and keep bigger news sources honest (2) Many newspaper articles are from AP or Reuters [or rehashes of them] anyway.
Here's another thought for how to improve newspapers: I wanted to get the San Jose Mercury News WITHOUT the Sunday edition, and was even willing to pay more, but they wouldn't sell it that way. I also did not want some sections of the newspaper [travel, religion, art] but again no deal, even thgouh each section was really a separate physical unit. I could get weekends only, or the whole week. Wouldn't custom bundles work better? This is another example of newspapers being behind the times, in this age of mass customization and 1-on-1 marketing.
Posted at 3:32AM on May 22nd 2007 by Jeyendran Balakrishnan
32. Question: Ethically, do you think it becomes an issue when a few media conglomerates own all of the major news outlets? Does more combining complicate that issue?
Ah, before I posted, saw the very first comment tackles that:
“1. While I agree it make sense (and cents) to integrate our various news medium vertically, it is likewise a scary though. The last thing we need is a smaller number of people controlling a larger percentage of our news. The current bias in news reporting renders it almost useless as it is.”
How do we keep the “guts” in the “news with guts” after the boardroom takes over? News has the same troubles as all mediums now, and unfortunately news has somehow gotten lost amidst trying to compete with celebrity goss shows and otherwise. “Infotainment” they’re calling it, right?
What it comes down to is we need a driving change in mindset around this country. Otherwise? It’s all just more of the same circle.
It’s possible for media, sports, the arts, advertisers to lead that change, but it’s going take a focused plan and an upfront, calculated risk to do so.
Tell me, who is going to do that when it’s much cheaper and easier to go with the status quo?
You?
33. Call me nuts..but the Internet is about to tip the distribution of news. I already subscribe to only the writers I respect, regardless of source and stay tuned to keywords I care about. The 2008 election will be the tipping point for the majority of Americans....tools that take advantage of personalized, dynamic RSS will be the engine to distribute news to phones, computers, TV's, iPods, etc.
Posted at 1:13PM on May 22nd 2007 by David Armstrong
34. Hey, Mark, just wanna say that I really love your blog!
Great content!
Posted at 1:44PM on May 22nd 2007 by Marcelo
35. Newspapers and TV have grown complacent as a result of their near monopoly in their own geographic kingdoms, whether there is one or multiple vendors.
The internet, which received daily coverage from these mediums, has simply blindsided traditional media. Up until recently the editors, publishers and owners have been caught up in their own form of denial. It appears that they are starting to come out from under the ether and utilize a combination of resources to remake themselves.
36. Did you hear about Donald Trump this weekend. He trashed back. Yikes!
Posted at 12:45AM on May 23rd 2007 by E
38. Per your item #2, regarding Sports reporter's questions... answer your question by asking, When was the last time you heard an answer from an athlete being interviewed that made you stop and think, "What a great answer...".
Posted at 1:56AM on May 25th 2007 by Alexis Wallrich
39. Your comment on news reporters not branding themselves is absolutely correct. People are creatures of habit and naturally gravitate to just a few sources of the vital information they need on a day to day basis. It’s about building a relationship of trust – even trusting that your source will say “I don’t know” when they don’t – and building trust follows the same rules from time immemorial. After the Web 2.0 honeymoon we’re reaching the stage when folks are realizing that a lot of supposedly vital information out there is wrong, and maybe even the blog writer didn’t intentionally set out to mislead folks. This is an extremely dangerous trend. It’s one of the reasons public broadcasting had to be regulated. Now I am careful in my choice of what blogs to read. You, Mark, think a lot about the issues you speak about and you’re fairly serious about working on your blog so it’s a source of useful information. However a lot of people simply don’t have the time to run consistent blogs because they have day jobs and quality quickly suffers. But we still want that small set of reliable sources so building up brands around good reporters online will help users find them. The big newspapers like Nytimes etc have already done their due diligence on their reporters. Sure you have the occasional misreporting incident but for the most part those reporters are great batters who are where they are for a good reason and folks will recognize their value sooner if given the right direction.
In general, though, things will just evolve the proper way. If the current big news agencies don’t do the right thing, someone else will step in the marketplace and get it right either deliberately or by accident. This is how CNN became so big, although I believe Ted Turner chose news simply because he wanted a big cable channel focused on one area and many of the other areas like Sports were already taken up. As a software entrepreneur it took me a very long time to set my company on developing an Internet product. I don’t like entering something unless I have a fairly good shot at creating a new standard, so my company’s activities have been and still are elsewhere. I still kept thinking about the Internet and became convinced that actually we are still at the very beginning of exploiting this technology. Way in the beginning. Luckily, thinking about it constantly for many years helped me get a clear glimpse of where it may be heading so I have now committed resources to develop a brand new Internet product/service. As an equity investor I would stay away from Internet related stocks because a casual purchase is just way too risky, but as a technology entrepreneur with a deep understanding of the technologies, investing in an Internet business over the next several decades or so as an owner makes perfect sense. The internet will continue to generate amazing inspiration and real value to people for ages to come. It is truly an abundant source as described in Chris Anderson’s book on the Long Tail.
Posted at 7:33AM on May 25th 2007 by Stephen
40. The biggest reason why other groups are not doing more convergence is simple: FCC rules prohibit it.
Companies like NewsCorp that own local TV stations can not also own newspapers. There are only a handful of places where owners of local TV station owners also owned newspapers before the rules were put in place in the 1970s -- Tampa is one place where Richmond-based Media General owns both WFLA Channel 8 and the Tampa Tribune. Media General has been pushing convergence quite hard for some time now.
NewsCorp can buy DowJones because it doesn't own a local TV affiliate in New York City. But many of the other large media companies can't do that.
Finally, the FCC is currently reviewing its rules in what many anticipate will be a loosening, allowing cross-ownership under certain circumstances (larger, metropolitan areas).
Posted at 8:39AM on May 25th 2007 by Jim Johnson
21. Mark,
You never hear great questions from sports reporters because they are fat and lazy. You've given them a free meal and a ticket to the game. They don't want to get kicked off the gravy train since the last thing a newspaper's budget holds is season tickets. I used to cover minor league hockey for a FaxOnDemand magazine (the dirt track of the information super highway). Most of the real newspaper people just wanted to write their six inches of copy and get home.
Now why do we need more than one reporter covering a story? Because there's a lot of lame reporters who can't get the real facts. Imagine how great CBS news would have been if Jayson Blair had been their NYTimes on the spot? He would have been standing in front of a blue screen from his neighborhood bar like a Daily Show correspondent. Look at how many people run AP wire reports with bogus details and nobody corrects them.
At least FoxNews has taught us one thing - that people don't care so much about the news as much listening to commentators shout about the news. They don't care to actually read the reports ahead of the teleprompter to know what they're saying. Neil Cavuto read a piece about cutbacks at MTV Networks and made a comment about how poorly the music video channel has been doing. But the cutbacks hit more than MTV. It hit Spike, Nick and other MTV Network channels. But that detail meant zilch to him.
I still wait for a sportswriter to respond to a coach's answer with "Are you sh___ing me?"
Posted at 12:19AM on May 21st 2007 by Joe Corey