There has been speculation about mainstream news agencies becoming irrelevant in the future. Newspapers often get carried along in those arguments, branding them irrelevant also. And with social news sites of the future to determine what is news and what isn't, even editors can't seem to escape the digital web. They are a dying breed, hoping only to remain somehow relevant, right? Not so fast!
First of all, the news needs to come from somewhere. While there have been some exceptional news sources outside the mainstream sources, one cannot possibly consider the coverage to be nearly the quality and breadth that we see from traditional sources. Turns out large networks of paid news reporters are actually a reasonably good way of documenting, and even creating, the news.
How about social news sites like Digg and Netscape? Have you ever read them? There is a barrage of news generated, but it's mostly bringing awareness to other original sources. It's more about publicity and aggregation than news generation. Probably the best thing about them is their ability to keep interesting stories in front of a large audience, and to discover what might have been unnoticed stories that could easily have disappeared if not for being picked up by one of the social news sites. Yet they still seem to have a core set of users that are essentially doing the editing and choosing the stories. Eventually, maybe mechanisms will exist to distribute that better, but until newspapers are completely forgotten, newspapers still have a few big advantages.
We hear mostly about how newspapers need to reinvent themselves to compete in the digital age. They need to rethink how the content is provided. They need to allow for customization, mobile devices and all kinds of new formats for the digital age. Agreed. But, contrary to popular opinion, the strength of newspapers is not their potential for customization, but their ability to give people a common view of the news. I had better explain!
A friend of mine is an avid golfer. And she has longed for the day when she might possibly get a hole-in-one. This past week, she did. And where do you think that got documented? In the local newspaper. That "dying" newspaper is still viewed by so many people that her hole-in-one, buried inside the sports results, was actually noticed by her friend. If I get a hole-in-one, is it going to appear on Netscape? Probably not even a local Netscape news of the future. And if it does, what are the odds my friends will see it? If the newspapers don't throw it away, one of their best assets is community.
What about the want ads? Have you wondered why they stay so popular when there are better ways to do sales? Online want ads would be so much more effective and efficient. But they don't (yet) have the same commonality. We still look at the local paper for want ads, even though they have done almost nothing to compete against the eBays of the world.
People standing around the water cooler still talk about articles in the paper. "Did you see that story about the ....?" It's still a common question, it's just supplemented with other types of common experience based on TV shows or TV news.
Newspapers seem intent on requiring online logins, and sometimes online subscriptions. Online advertising revenues, together with online content subscription fees seem to be the answer for newspaper publishers in the future. Maybe so, but I'm arguing that they have a much more urgent concern, and that's to preserve and build community for the next generation of readers and the next wave of digital content. It's not about format and fees and advertising right now. It's not even really about eyeballs. It's about community.
Local papers should do everything they can to sell themselves as the water cooler publication. They should make it clear that if you and your friends follow the paper faithfully, whether by subscription or free online reading, you will have something to share together. If people in a community, get in the habit of following the local newspaper, they build their community. Conversely, if everyone looks somewhere different to get their news, at best there's some overlap of key stories. It's just not the same.
I won't bore people with ideas about how to market and cultivate that image. Nor will I insult anyone by saying that I've presented a complete and thorough argument here. I haven't. But what I have presented, is a fresh and new way of looking at the role of newspapers for the future. One that works, but is very different than the direction we see the newspapers going with their online efforts. Is it too late? I don't think so. But there has to be a change of mind about what matters. Community, not ads and custom content filtering is what will save the newspapers.
Update: Here's an example of standard "forward" thinking about the newspaper industry in the digital age. I don't mean to rip on that article... it's got all valid points. But I do mean to demonstrate that there is another aspect to maintaining their relevancy in the future. And it's not all about format, it's about community.