Most Old Media does not understand what
is going on. David Carr, in The Media Equation column, writes in the
October 28, 2008 New York Times:
"Mourning Old Media's Decline
It’s been an especially rotten few
days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian
Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease
publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time
magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it
was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the
largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness
by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up
to 3,000 people."
Ironically, The Christian Science Monitor announcement offered a tone of advancement, marching into the future and touched on their history of being first to make progressive changes - a way to "secure and
enlarge the Monitor's role in its second century..."
Part of the problem is the loss of jobs
and the terrible sense of insecurity that brings to workers in Old
Media. Carr continues:
"Clearly, the sky is falling. The question now is how many people
will be left to cover it.
It goes on. The day before, the Tribune
Company had declared that it would reduce the newsroom of The Los
Angeles Times by 75 more people, leaving it approximately half the
size it was just seven years ago.
The Star-Ledger of Newark, the 15th-largest paper in the country,
which was threatened with closing, will apparently survive, but only
after it was announced that the editorial staff would be reduced by
40 percent."
What is the problem?
"The paradox of all these announcements
is that newspapers and magazines do not have an audience problem —
newspaper Web sites are a vital source of news, and growing — but
they do have a consumer problem."
A consumer problem. You, the consumer,
are the problem. That problem is equated to people checking the news
on their Blackberrys.
What is this consumer problem if the
readership is still there? Simply put, now the audience is consuming
on the Internet and Old Media has not understood how to make money
off the Internet audience. That, in essence is the audience problem.
But is it?
What if the problem is not that there
is too little money in Internet advertising and other money flows as
they exist today – what if there is just too much extra baggage to
carry? Too many machines to run, too many people to run them, too
much structure and too large an organization that has grown used to a
steady flow of easy food.
Sam Zell, the new owner of the Los
Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune sees money in selling off the
real estate. He's apparently ready to “sell off” editorial staff
as well. The owners of the Sacramento Bee are offering buy outs to
people in non revenue producing departments, another way of saying
Editorial staff.
How much does it cost Old Media to
support their machinery and infrastructure? As long as they attempt
to keep iconic buildings, presses and a huge support structure in
place there is little choice but to cut Editorial. But what happens
if they move as The Christian Science Monitor has and eliminate the
need for massive infrastructure? What if reporters become more
independent and use fewer corporate resources?
Stereotypically, Reporters tend to be an adventurous,
independent group. They also can be very competitive. A group of
hungry reporters getting paid for stories that tell the truth and
attract readers can be a formidable force. The attention a story or
writer gets can be measured on the Internet in ways that print
stories cannot. Really good, hot reporters will not mind the Collapse
at all.
How soon will all the ailing giants follow the lead of the Christian Science Monitor? Soon, if
they want to survive. Sooner if they want to stay in front and on
top.
Link to the full text of the New York
Times column (while it is accessible)
