>1. Shut down their physical production lines, immediately saving millions of dollars a year. Move to online only format.
>2. Move full time staff to consultant roles, and retain a small editorial staff of the highest quality.
>3. Focus less on news snippets,
The christian science monitor has done this and successfully gone from being a very local to a world wide brand.
What you are describing is already done as a news magazine. Take away the immediate snippets of news and focus on indepth stories? Well, now you are running another Time, NewsWeek, Economist, etc..
How are those businesses doing?
Re:You Can’t Sell News by the Slice
by run4yourlives on Tuesday February 10, 2009 @01:08PM
(#475574)
The problem is they didn't follow the first step.
And yes, that is what I'm suggesting, that newspapers evolve into daily news magazines, albeit online. I understand that there won't be enough room for all the existing brands in this space, especially with focuses that aren't local. Such is the harsh reality of the free market.
In this case the internet is the catalyst for change; just like in the music industry and the movie industry. Shareholders should be demanding their respective CEO's have vast experience in the domain that threatens to defeat them, instead of continuing to twaddle along in a world that will die with the boomers.
I'd imagine 20-30% of this board would excel at the c-suite level of a newspaper. The rest of us would be more than adequate strategists and advisors. Why? Because we understand the nature of the medium that matters, not the medium that is already dead.
For example, my two cents worth:
What is it that local papers, including the Times (which is basically a local paper from a city many people enjoy reading about) do that the internet can not? Easy - they offer consistently high quality and in-depth analysis of current events. It's their editorial board that matters, really. They can't compete with timely news delivery. They can't compete with bloggers breaking stories. They can deliver a broader and deeper explanation of what events mean to the lives of others. They can provide opinions of well respected and well researched individuals.
If they were to truly leverage this strength, they would do the following:
1. Shut down their physical production lines, immediately saving millions of dollars a year. Move to online only format.
2. Move full time staff to consultant roles, and retain a small editorial staff of the highest quality.
3. Focus less on news snippets, possibly partner with companies that can already do this better than they can - Google news anyone? Newsvine?
4. Focus more on opinion, editorial and deeper feature stories that appeal beyond the 10 second sound bite. Attract readers with the higher quality that they can provide. (Again, there's a market in every local for this - the Guardian doesn't care about what city hall is doing in Buttfuck, Iowa, but the people living there sure do)
5. Either sell ads or subscriptions for such content.
Does this mean they can't rake in the revenues that they once did? Certainly. Does it also mean, however, that they'll remain relevant for the foreseeable future? Of course. Most papers have already conquered the biggest challenge to doing this - building a strong brand-related audience of readers. They've already got the leg up on competitors, and they don't even realize it.
First one for each market to do this well wins.