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
- The Internet Hammer and the everything Nail (7/04/2008)
- Ruh Roh - Porn could sink Youtube in Viacom case.... (7/03/2008)
- NBC vs Fanboys vs Sports Talk Radio vs The Olympics (6/29/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 3)42. Very interesting article, Mark. With respect to the net, Convergence is akin to searching for the Holy Grail. I don't believe its power is understood as it should be. I've spent 10 years evangelizing on that concept and we're just now beginning to make some headway with Corporate America. It's finally catching on.
For example, the main challenge today facing ALL organizations worldwide is how to respond or adapt to changes taking place in the global marketplace due to the Virtualization of the Workspace and the Virtualization of the Workforce.
Although great strides have been made by IT with respect to Virtualization of the Workspace through the use of the latest web technologies, virtual collaboration toools, social networks and a host of web-based CMS (content management systems), sales force automation tools, sophisticated financial modeling tools, instant messaging etc., very little progress has been made in the area of Virtualization of the Workforce.
Besides token effort in the areas of telecommuting, virtual employment in certain fields, and virtual collaboration by some remote teams or among globally dispersed members, there remains a HUGE VOID that needs to be filled with respect to Virtualization of the Workforce.
Once that void is filled and we approach a state of equilibrium, a VIRTUALIZATION CONVERGENCE will take place and create a virtual synergy that will transform [whichever company] that understands its importance into a Virtual Economic Powerhouse (VEP).
That applies to any company in any industry and the bigger the company the better.
Pierre Coupet
CEO & Chief Virtual Organization
Management Consultant
Posted at 2:42AM on May 28th 2007 by Pierre Coupet
43. Most sports reporters don't even ask questions because they're only interested in a quote to fit their story, instead of an answer that might lead to a different story. Thus, most "questions" are now along the lines of "Talk about how this."
Might argue the web has made this worse as everyone feels pressure to file immediately, but it's a poor excuse.
Posted at 5:54PM on May 30th 2007 by jason becking
44. To the final two comments in this post:
1. Newspaper columnists/reports with "blogs" on newspaper websites -- Man, do I agree. It doesn't even qualify as a "pet" peeve for me -- it's a "full-on" peeve. Generally, it's the same boring "my thoughts" column that runs in the newspaper every day -- yet it's branded as a "blog" because newspaper websites are playing catch-up and think that users will read it if it's called a blog.
2. Good questions from sports media to athletes -- I don't think we hear many for a couple reasons:
a) local/national sports media talent wants to be liked by the athlete, perhaps out of a fantasy of being the athlete's local "regular Joe (or Jane)" buddy when around-the-way
b) while the athlete-turned-sportscaster is nothing new, again I think that former athletes hated when media asked them tough questions. And now they want their former teammates/opponents to feel at ease when being "interviewed" so it's always an easy "get."
45. so exciting it is,i love it very much
Posted at 12:31PM on Jun 6th 2007 by wow power leveling
46. You'd put Time at the top of the list? Really?
Totally agree about the need for a name other than "blog". Some news organizations are trying to take on more of a grassroots feel. It's an odd way to go, though - those organizations are giving up their main differentiation from all the other stories I could read. If Brokaw is just blogging, it sounds like he's doing no more research than John Doe.
Posted at 1:42PM on Jun 7th 2007 by Matt Dooley
47. Oh! but Is it the think that you know earlier??
Posted at 1:25AM on Jun 11th 2007 by Christopher
49. Mark,
Part of the reason is antiquated law. It's illegal for a single entity to own a newspaper and TV station in the same market. What about WFAA and DMN you say? Both owned by Belo? That was grandfathered in. Belo is one of the oldest media conglomerates in the country. This is one of, if not the only market in the country where you will find this.
Now, that's not to say that a cable media mogul couldn't buy Newsweek or Time magazine. But as far as newspapers and TVs go, Uncle Sam didn't want one company controlling all of the news and information in a single community/region.
Is it antiquated? Sort of, but probably not completely. We complain about the media enough. In today’s word of corporate consolidation can you imagine if CNN or Fox controlled 80% of the countries news and information? Reform might be needed to keep up with the times, but abolishing the rules is a risky proposition. Some LIGHT regulation is arguably needed.
Keep pushin’ the limits!
Brad
50. Where the local markets allows it like Murdoch and DJ + Fox Business channel this will make a great deal of sense.
And we will see some newspapers go fully digital as collateral damamge to this change.
Posted at 8:12PM on Jul 16th 2007 by Jason Kemp
41. HOLLY CRAP!! CHECK THIS OUT AND SPREAD THE WORD!
*********Public Emergency Broadcast*********
This is a Public Emergency Broadcast to Awaken the people of America. This isn't about money and that is why you WILL NOT hear about this In the 'Main Stream Corporate Media'.
We are ALL in Grave and Immediate Danger.
Go to: WakingMinds . Org
and pass it on.
Posted at 5:12AM on May 27th 2007 by Concerned Citizens Of America