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?
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)
Comments