An email from Christopher James brought an interesting perspective to Project Unbolt.
Chris is a former sports writer at the Berkshire Eagle, one of our Project Unbolt pilot newsrooms. He won a DFMie last year for sports writing, then took a job as sports editor at the Mountain Press in Sevier County, Tenn.
Here’s what Chris said in his email (which I’m using here with his permission):
I haven’t had the time to read all your unbolt posts, but they touch on a lot of themes I’m trying to emphasize here as well. So forgive me if you’ve spelled this out, but it seems to be the obvious, perhaps unsaid idea here is that the newspaper (or Tout or video or photograph or social networks) aren’t the products. They’re delivery services for the product which is good storytelling, journalism, etc.
I know whenever I sat in on a conference call at DFM, I felt like the language “New product lines” (i.e. Tout initiative, social media wire, etc) was the wrong terminology. The product is still the news being delivered via those avenues.
If you look at it that way, I think it answers a lot of questions (Do we still edit as vigorously?). We’re still seeking the same journalism excellence, just delivering it in a new way.
I believe my mission statement as a journalist does not change even while the workflow becomes unrecognizable compared to 5 or 10 years ago.
Terminology is important and I used to make a similar point in closing my Newspaper Next presentations about disruption in the newspaper industry (similar to the closing of my 2012 “Embrace discomfort” address and post).
As Chris said, we are still seeking journalism excellence. Good storytelling remains the heart of what we do. I think every journalist should take heart in that fact and focus on telling good stories. If journalism excellence or good storytelling can provide a Northern Star to help you navigate in confusing times, I encourage that.
I also caution, though, against using that reassurance to downplay the importance of change or of the delivery system and workflow.
We have new storytelling tools and techniques and if we want to continue pursuing excellence, we need to learn those tools and techniques.
Audience has always mattered in journalism and our audience is increasingly on digital platforms. We have to change how we work if we want to remain excellent. Too many journalists and news organizations still essentially post a print story online, and post their stories on print deadlines (after the day’s digital traffic is tapering off).
From a consumer’s standpoint, a delivery system is part of a product. We may be delivering great journalism, but if some of it doesn’t play on a mobile app or an m-dot website, that product sucks to a smartphone user. And if that story was delivered to the digital audience at the right time for consumers of the morning newspaper, it was late for that product.
So I agree with Chris that our core product — news about your community — doesn’t change. But the changes in workflow and delivery are profound and we can’t achieve journalism excellence without making and mastering those changes.
Chris and you inspire me by sharing the same convictions about doing journalism, still, for all the right reasons.
Chris also notes the workflow will continue to change, while core journalism will continue pretty much as it has for pretty much the same reasons.
What is also old-school is that journalism never paid its way, and bolted or unbolted, journalism still needs cash in copious quantities to live on.
For the journalist to pour their work into workflows that update stories without having to change press plates is certainly in keeping with ‘stop the presses’ thinking. And why not turn a 30-minute cycle from typewriter to street into a third of a second from click to chime or vibrate? Absolutely!
But are consumers of old-school journalism going to pony up for the actual costs of old-school journalism? Will I? You? What is the estimated family fee to support old-school journalism in Severe County, TN? Would $29 a month per household get the job done? There are 6,000 households in Sevierville, with 37,000 households in the county where the Mountain Press aspires to circulate. How many households at $29 a month would it take to fully fund old-school journalism, and leave profits a plenty for publishers? Sure, including the printed copy of the Mountain Press each day is included in that fee. 20,000 households paying $29 a month do it?
The number would have to be adjusted I’m sure. (It is annoying that the Mountain Press website does not make it easy to understand the subscription options, including price, without first demanding the supplicant provide 20 or so cells worth of personal data …)
The question, however, is what kind of digital services to individuals in the various households would justify, say, $29 a month family plan (‘less than a dollar a day’) … assuming $29 a month profitably support journalism as we all want and hope to provide it.
In addition to journalism, what kind of digital services uniquely available from the Mountain Press would compel the revenue that would result in the profits that would justify the gardens in which great journalism flurishes?
Newspaper next thought a lot about that question, just not the part that involves families paying directly for the services.
LikeLike
If we’re going to succeed, Bill, I think we need to develop multiple revenue streams beyond subscriptions and advertising.
LikeLike
[…] Excellent journalism is still our product […]
LikeLike
[…] promoting books. Nancy March contributed guest posts on a community partnership and Project Unbolt. Christopher James, Tony Adamis, Viktoria Sundqvist and Kevin Moran (and his Berkshire Eagle colleagues) also […]
LikeLike