Newspapers are out, online is not (yet) in. OECD ponders

The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has conducted a study on the business of newspapers and the future of news in an evident response to declining advertising revenues in the backdrop of a relative unwillingness of readers to pay for online content.
I found it interesting that governments are thinking about helping newspapers--because they help democracy. So, after rejecting government support for ad cash, will newspapers and news gathering machines accept government patronage again? Interesting question.
I do think the world of news is going to be more varietous, as the report itself is suggesting. In fact, it already is. But revenues and money? Ah, we are still wondering where this is all going.

ABC of Indian Media-Advertising, Bollywood, Corporate Power

P. Sainath is a firebrand activist, and incidentally a journalist.
But he is understandably a spokesman for journalism and journalist issues these days, for good reasons
1) He is at The Hindu, which likes to discuss media-related issues on its pages, especially those that relate to ethics

2) As a methodical prodder passionate about rural and social issues, Sainath comes from the "development/activist" school of journalism, and is thoroughly disturbed by the trivialisation of many serious issues

3) He writes well, with a strong tendency to marshall facts and use telling phrases which can match any lawyer or public orator.

Here he is, arguing about how the Indian media is almost systematically being held to ransom by the superficial troika of advertising, movie glamour and corporate agenda. Good, essential reading for media watchers.

Newspapers are alive and kicking -- in Delhi

So you thought newspapers are sinking? Not in Delhi--look what I clicked at the news-stand this morning...and none of them is Delhi's main paper. Amazing language range as well!

Is social media a threat to journalism?

Here is a piece from Chris Cramer, a BBC and CNN veteran and current Reuters Global Editor, Multimedia, on what social media and "citizen journalism" means to the media. The bottomline: credibility and integrity matter, and profits follow.
I agree with a lot of what he says, having worked at Reuters-- with its commitment for some basic principles. But there is a chaotic universe out there and we need more innovations -in products, services and business models.

TOI, ET losing circulation in Mumbai: Is the Old Lady of Bori Bunder aging further?

I find this quite interesting.
Could it be true? The venerable Old Lady of Bori Bunder losing hold in her Victorian bastion? Are Hindustan Times and DNA eating into her vitals?
Or is it that thing called TV or Internet which is making readers less interested to pay for it?
I don't know, but it is clear to me that the newspaper business is headed for a real churning. The winners will be those who truly understand readers-- and that's easier said than done.
Here is the story with some details. Data is still pouring in.

Why Murdoch is right on charging for online news

The Web is abuzz after media baron Rupert Murdoch of New Corp said that his group's newspapers planned to charge for online news/content.
I have no problem with that. Though obituaries and criticism of such a move are afloat on the selfsame Net.
As an experienced journalist, I make a few simple observations.
It costs money to make people do reportage
Credibility comes from known sources that employ processes
Bloggers and others who simply extract published news from the Web and repeate it have no viable business model and breaking news cannot be ad-hoc.
If it is offered free, it has to be accounted in financial terms somewhere--at least by cross-subsidisation.
For more than a decade now, newspaper publishers have been shooting themselves in the foot in order to understand the new medium better.
They have tried to behave like news agencies, reporting 24/7
They have offered content free, only to find their own revenues and circulation falling.
They have invested in technology and branding, but online ads have not got the traction to take it beyond a point.
Above all, they have to suffer sites like Google News that looks like a newspaper and rides on free content from the papers and other online news sites.
Something's gotta give.
If Murdoch charges, will other newspapers see it as an opportunity or a threat? I don't know, but  I do know that sooner or later, viable models for both credibility and profitability in online news has to come in.

Murdoch thinks newspapers will go digital --and won't be free on the Web

Rupert Murdoch should know -- it costs money to produce news and content. Why should newspapers give it for free--especially when the Web is what is putting them into trouble?
Here is the baron telling us how things should move--or the way he sees them moving.

Remembering how newspapers were produced in the 1970s

I remember the time in the 1980s when I started out in a newspaper.

The ticker tapes, also known as teleprinters, made a loud noise

They were accompanied by the sound of clattering typewriters going tik-tak-tuk-tak and triiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing when the line changed.

Copies were edited by hand, with sub-editors using symbols that resembled today's software code.

They were composed in molten lead in a dingy room below, and laid out for proofing by men in blue uniforms.

We had to mind our steps as we moved down, and be careful not to let the black ink touch our shirts or the molten lead burn our hands

Proofreaders, many in thick glasses that served as career souveiners, matched copy with proofs.

One separate machinist operated a contraption that composed headlines.

Things have come a long way to Twitter!

Read this to get an idea of how things were then

When it is your NGO, and our content...

What happens when one of the country's biggest firebrand social-environmental activists is accused of copyright violation? Sunita Narain is in a spot because her organisation seems to have merrily used content from Mint newspaper without permission.
Here is what the managing editor says in his blog.

Takes me back to that old expression of mine: Loser Generated Content.

Anybody who thinks content is free or should be, is a saint (which I think I am not), or making good money elsewhere and treats knowledge as charity.
It's time quality content producers become aware of their rights.

US journalists became self-indulgent, says Murdoch

I am not done with the Murdoch visit to India yet. Always looking for telling quotes from the man, whose furrowed forehead and creased smile attracts me as much as his insights into the business.
Here is my takeaway quote from the visit:

Newspapers in America became
monopolistic. Proprietors became lazy, and journalists became self-indulgent because they were writing for each other and lost touch with the public.

Full interview story from CNBC -TV 18 here

Is television dying? Or is it prime-time? Or is that the soap opera?

Am I eating crow?
Did I speak too soon when I predicted the end-of-prime-time-as-we-know it?
Have I been betting too much on online video?

A new study by CBS says rumours of the television's death may be premature. It says online video is not going to kill TV.

Did video kill the radio star?
Did movies kill theatre?
Did television news kill newspapers?

Hmmm. I wish to go back to the details of my general drift during the three years that this blog has talked time and again of prime-time.
The emphasis should be on end-of-prime-time-as-we-know it

What it means is that a profusion of easy-to-launch digital TV/direct-to-home channels, online videos seen on PCs and other devices, and mobile videos streamed from a variety of sources (including blogs) will collectively erode the awesome power that 20th Century-style television had for about half-a-century.

This is what I say. Just as theatre, newspapers and radio had to re-invent themselves and undeniably lost their clout, so will television, primarily of the thousand-pound-gorilla-prime-time variety. Some of the soap serial makers like Ekta Kapoor, raised on a diet of greasy parathas and TRPs (television rating points) may wish to reach for a handkerchief, mimicking the ladies of their much-watched prime-time serials.

Now, will audio-books make reading go out of fashion? That's another story.

US newspapers head south. What will happen to Indian nupes?

American newspapers are getting thinner, local news is up, stock tables have disappeared. So have TV listings. Revenues are down. Picture is expected to worsen.
So reveals a survey of editors in 1,217 -- and only 259 responded.
The survey comes from Pew Research Center under something called the Project for Execellence in Journalism.
More stuff in this in Reuters Mediafile here

Now, I do believe that Indian newspapers will get thinner as well.

Can you measure journalism? How much is Picasso worth per square inch?

How do you measure journalistic productivity? Can you put numbers on stories executed to judge reporters? What the hell is a good-quality story? Does it involve writing? Balance? Reportage? "Consumer" value? Editing? What is the value of designers/copy-editors? Ideators?
Who should decide the quality? A vice-president with an MBA?
Is this a science? Is this an art?
What is subjective?
What the hell is objective?
No easy answers, but here is an interview with Chicago Tribune editor by Reuters Mediafile, which I am providing as food for thought/grist for mill.

(If I have the answers, I am not going to tell you now:))
And, oh yes! If you read the script below carefully, there is an open acknowledgement that newspapers are in crisis.
That is something that Indian newspapers don't seem to be saying...how interesting!

Here is the interview:

Tribune Co is keeping media reporters and headline writers busy these days with news of how the company is trying to turn around its newspaper business and stay afloat under billions of dollars in debt - all while creating a culture that, as Chicago real estate tycoon and newly minted press baron Sam Zell says, does not take itself too seriously.

That is growing more difficult as the company embarks on another round of job cuts at its papers, sparking fear and loathing among employees, and launches an ambitious plan to redo the papers' sizes and looks. Tribune also set journalism types' tongues a-wagging with its plan to review reporter productivity as a possible condition for staying on board. That might not sound so controversial, except that many people have interpreted that as saying it's not about the quality of your stories, it's about the quantity.

Gerould Kern, Tribune's vice president of editorial and the successor to departing Chicago Tribune editor Ann Marie Lipinski, addressed some of these topics in a phone interview with Reuters.

Q: What is your immediate task as the new editor of the Chicago Tribune?

A: As we report almost daily, the newspaper business is in a crisis. And I want to do everything I can in my power to save it. And you know, the Chicago Tribune has played a huge role in the history of the nation and the city, and I know it and I'm proud of it and I want that history to stretch far into the future. So I'm optimistic that we can solve these economic problems, the economic dislocation that faces us and that we're not only going to survive but thrive in the future.

Q: How do you make the business thrive with fewer people?

A: I think it becomes a lot harder and that's going to force us to be a lot more innovative and entrepreneurial and resourceful than we've ever been before. There's been a lot of misinformation and confusion about productivity as a topic. I think the idea's fairly simple. Let's turn over every stone, let's do every smart thing we can to stretch the resources, to use them to serve people and build our audiences and bring in revenue to support journalism.

It means our full-time professional staff is going to get smaller. And that's been happening to newspapers all over the country. And yet we're having to support more local media channels than ever before. … At the end of the day we still will have the largest newsgathering organization in this city by far. And if we are really smart and resourceful about using them we will be able to a fabulous job for consumers in whatever channel they choose.

Q: What do you say to the reporters who say they're scandalized by the idea of being judged on how many stories they produce, rather than the quality of individual stories?

A: I think it is unfortunate that this has been focused on in this way. I understand it based on some comments that [Tribune Chief Operating Officer] Randy [Michaels] made on the middle of that call. Let me just say this: I talked in a broader sense about productivity, which frankly is the way I'm looking at it. What can the whole organization do that's smart, that's strategic, that's resourceful.

But on bylines: All of our newspapers are looking at all kinds of information to see what is valuable in making some of these tough choices… Some of our newspapers in some departments have been doing byline counts over the years. It's not the first time that anybody's ever done that. From the beginning, we made it clear that this should be viewed as just one data point and, frankly, probably not the most valuable and that it had to be combined with other information. … Everybody knows for instance that you have to evaluate investigative reporters differently than other kinds of reporters. Because reporting takes a long time… And everyone was aware of that.

In the end, the information and the judgment calls [were] left strictly up to editors in the newsroom and that's where it will remain. So, I think much more is being made of it than really is there.

Media set for zillion-scale growth (Er, what about crude and food prices?)

I love those forecasts. Everybody from Goldman Sachs to your friendly neighbourhood IT consultancy was making predictions in 1998-2000 about the way the Internet will grow and grow and grow. And then came the Dotcom Bust that saw startups and listed companies alike go belly-up!
Take forecasts with a pinch of salt-- but like your teenage crushes, they always make you feel good, even if they take you nowhere.
This week comes PricewaterhouseCoopers' forecast about growth in the media industry.
Media revenue is globally set to rise 6.6 per cent a year to $2.2 trillion (A trillion is one billion and one billion is 1,000 million) by 2012, says the forecast. The 6.6 number does not sound unrealistic to me, given the single digits, but I am once-bitten, twice shy.
The Hollywood Reporter's despatch mentions Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRIC) as the major growth driver.
It says: "Growth in the roaring economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China -- the so-called BRIC nations -- will outpace the more mature markets of the U.S. and Western Europe, with PwC forecasting 13.6% average annual growth in BRIC compared with just 4.8% annual growth in the U.S. media industry and 5.4% in Western Europe.

By 2012, the report predicts that the media business in BRIC will total about $250 billion, compared with $759 billion in the U.S., about $633 billion in Western Europe and $166 billion in Japan."
Oh, I really love that. And given that newly affordable TVs and exploding mobile handsets will drive new kind of content and games and entertainment, it sounds plausible.
But then, I am reading all this amid a sub-prime crisis in the US (and ergo, global) economy. With crude prices and food prices high in many parts, I need to also worry about the price of salt. If all of us take a pinch of it with such reports, I am sure the price of that grain will go up as well!