4 Reasons Why The World Assn of Newspapers Will Not Like My Speech

Jun 6, 2009

This Wednesday morning I have the honor of addressing WAN-IFRA’s Newsroom Summit in Kuala Lumpur in a keynote speech on Social Media. WAN-IFRA is the newly merged entity gathering the world’s publishers and editors of newspapers.

Raju Narisetti, a friend and managing editor of the Washington Post, precedes me in opening the conference, so pressure is on for me to deliver something noteworthy and relevant to the audience.

I fear they will not like much of what I will say:

1- In the two years since leaving my job as a newspaper correspondent I have come to see news as something I can get for free on the Internet. Newspapers are a pleasurable thing to pick up in a coffee shop or airplane that provides them for added service. Almost a luxury item to be savored like a good cigar. (Except that I don’t smoke cigars)

2- In my job as Asia-Pacific director of Digital Influence 360 at Ogilvy, I spend my time speaking with companies about how they no longer need to go through media. By interacting directly with consumers they build a direct bond in a way that was not possible before the Internet. Why pay the “Publisher’s Tax” in going through the media when you can own the relationship yourself?

3- The downward slide of newspapers due to the Internet got steeper due to the economic crisis, but I think it will get steeper still. The capital and maintenance costs of printing presses and distribution systems that once served as barriers to new entrants, now tie down newspapers against more nimble online competitors.

4- In the era of environmental concern, could you imagine inventing a business based on chewing up dead trees, spraying them with ink and then distributing them – on a daily basis – with a fleet of pollution spewing vehicles?

@PB: I totally agree about the value that newspapers and reliable news organizations provide. My concern is how they will finance newsgathering operations. I lament the pain that media now faces and see a real threat to democracy and open society. What I do not see is how to bring in income from news now that the monopoly provided by ownership of a printing press provided.

Some reactions being sent to me by email:
FORMER COLLEAGUE: “Provocative and attention getting. But does make me wonder why you fought so hard to rescue your IHT bylines from the archives of newspapers that you dismiss as “a business based on chewing up dead trees, spraying them with ink and then distributing them – on a daily basis – with a fleet of pollution spewing vehicles?”"

ME: Why did I fight to rescue my bylines? For the blood, sweat and tears. Also, mainstream media has the highest credibility! That is why we need to find a ways to rescue it. I didn’t dismiss the value of journalism, I raised the issue of the environmental impact of newspapers. I remember an amazing chart that showed the number of trees that went into a single copy of the NYT. Incredible number.

FORMER COLLEAGUE: “hi tom, good food for thought. please send round a copy of the speech after delivery. one idea for your consideration – though I’m sure you’ve thought through the angles – is that someone like raju might whip right back at you that an investigative article in the bbc, iht, nyt, washpost, ft or economist would trump any brand building a company does by “owning the relationship.” that surely still shows the power of the traditional players in the media market – they can’t be ignored. good luck tomorrow.”

ME: Yes, of course a “brand building exercise” could be hurt badly by a great investigative piece by a traditional media (or non-traditional media) outlet. But I am not clear how that point affects my arguments. You still need to find a way to pay for quality journalism. That is the problem I see. It is about business models, not credibility.

Discussion

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.thomascrampton.com/newspapers/wan-ifra-world-association-newspapers-raju-narisetti/trackback/

View Comments for “4 Reasons Why The World Assn of Newspapers Will Not Like My Speech”

Alex

What is the point of journalism? Are people both in aggregate across the globe and in local areas more informed than they were before the widespread use of the Internet, and how can this be attributed to the Internet specifically?

This question is intended as rhetorical, as answering it, and using those answers, would be a life's pursuit, but, I guess that's part of the point of being a journalist. :)
Peter Olszewski

Bless you Crampton for you have sinned, ringing the alarum bells for journalists as such, and you , being a minority investor in PP Post and all!!.

You say:

“1- In the two years since leaving my job as one of their globe-trotting newspaper correspondents, I have not once purchased a single copy of the International Herald Tribune. I have come to see news as something I can get for free on the Internet. Newspapers are a pleasurable thing to pick up in a coffee shop or airplane that provides them for added service.”

This is okay, this is not a sin. For somebody, the hotel, the airline etc, has purchased that newspaper or at least made a commercial arrangement for the provision of it. Plus the advertisements are getting the exposure that the clients pay for.

The important factor is that while you are having free read courtesy of someone else, you are not stealing the content, the journalists work.

As a journalist I have no problem with the notion that the carriage of news may shift from paper to online. I just want to get paid or alternatively I want the people who pay me (ie you) to get paid.

The big problem is, as I’m sure you are aware, that the advertisers do not seem to fully share your view that they can “own the relationship themselves” because the lack of advertising dollars online is exactly what is holding online back.

Many newspaper reports that online ad revenue really only brings in 10-15% percent of their total revenue at best.

We newspaper people aren’t stupid. Mate if we could do away with expensive printing and distribution and still get the same ad revenue, plus news outlet buyer revenue, hey we’d be online quicker that a Thai whore drops her g-string.

Where then are the ad bucks?

Finally, it’s time that journalists were accorded their dues. It’s time to stop presuming automatically that online material should always be free material. There are laws to protect copyright. The “free” purloining of journalistic content must stop. It’s like a watchmaker giving away his watches. How does he make a buck? How do the people who pay him to make watches make a buck”.

It’s really simple capitalism. If you make it or create it you own it.

Fifteen years ago I freelanced and sold stories to news agencies. Every 3 months or so I’d get a long list of news outlets from every corner of the world; all small change but adding up to a sizable return for the investment in my WORK. In the good old days I used to be able to sell second, third rights etc to my features because they are my work and I own the work and I wanna be paid!

Nowadays I also write for Factiva. People pay to read that, I get paid to write it via royalty, and that material is protected from being stolen, pirated, used for free.

I write books and when I quote even a line from a song I must get permission and pay a fee otherwise the copy right holder management company hounds me like dogs from hell. As a young lad I stole a line from Bob Dylan for a book I wrote and boy, did I learn the errors of my ways.

It’s time now that we journalists, and the news outlets that pay us have their work regarded as their work, their ownership respected and that somebody somewhere pay for their use.

If you like many others say it can’t be done in this digital age, well I say bullshit, just watch Rupert Murdoch. Pay to view and pay to read my son.
PB

What you're saying contains some elements of truth but perhaps a bit too simplistic, in the sense that the newspaper business doesn't just evolve around putting ink on dead trees. I don't pick up a copy of the SCMP every day like you don't ever buy the IHT, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't look at the NY Times' website to see their latest articles or get their updates through RSS. As a consumer I still find these 'old media' articles interesting and relevant and my wife and I still find it a pleasure to enjoy brunch on a Sunday morning with a copy of the Post Magazine. If we ever see a good recommendation of a restaurant in a paper we would certainly give it a try and I suspect most people would do the same. So who's to say the media has no influence on people anymore? It's easy to pronunce "old media is dead" like it's a cliche but I wonder to what extent this is really true from consumers' POV (not just social media guru's POV) especially in the APAC region. No doubt social media is important but at a certain point I think we need to be more critical about this "if it ain't social media it's crap" mindset.
Andrew

And you are an investor in a newspaper, Tom?