Future of Newspapers: Less Print, More Digital, Alternative Forms of Funding

What do the mainstream media and Christian denominations have in common? Great histories and uncertain futures.

That’s the view of Bob Cox, publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press and chair of News Media Canada, an umbrella group for newspapers and radio and TV stations in Canada.

At the same time, they share another important thing: “We have a mission that we feel is crucial to the communities we live in,” he stated.

Cox shared that perspective on November 20 during a webinar with members of the Canadian Christian Communicators Association (CCCA).

He went on to say while newspapers like the Free Press are facing severe challenges, “demand for what we produce, news and information, has not gone away.”

According to the most recent data from Vividata, the Free Press reaches 64% of adults in Winnipeg, and 64% of Winnipeggers say they read a newspaper in some form, he noted.

Nationally, things are similar, he said, with 79% of Montrealers, 68% of people in Toronto, 76% of people in Victoria accessing newspapers.

“Basically, about three out of every four Canadian adults get news from newspapers every week,” he said.

Good news: People still reading newspapers, but new ways of consuming news

But if people aren’t abandoning newspapers, it’s also true they aren’t consuming them the way they used to.

That same data from Vividata shows many newspapers in Canada have digital audiences larger than, or the same size as, their print audiences, he said.

This includes the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star, Le Devoir, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald and the Windsor Star.

All of these “papers” are “actually majority digital media or close to it,” he stated.

“We’re fast approaching the tipping point where all daily newspapers will have primarily digital audiences.”

Bad news: Falling advertising revenues

While its good news that people are reading newspapers, the bad news is financial support for them as fallen dramatically.

“In many ways this is like a lot of churches that have widespread community support but empty pews so they don’t have enough donations to keep their doors open,” he shared.

A chief reason for the financial drop is how local businesses, which used to support newspapers with advertising, spend more and more of their advertising dollars on Facebook and Google.

Those ad dollars, which used to support local journalism, now “leave the community,” he stated.

Nationally, Cox said, ad revenues in newspapers have fallen by half in the past five years to about $1.5 billion from $3 billion, and that $3 billion is half again of what existed a decade ago.

More bad news: Drop in circulation

Added to that is the change in consumer habits, as readers who used to buy subscriptions go online expecting to get news for free.

The result is a significant drop in circulation. Cox said the Free Press sold about 250,000 copies on Saturdays in 1984; today that figure is 73,000.

Nationally, the number of printed papers sold is half what it was a decade ago, he noted.

And yet, surveys show people still really value local news, he said. “They see it as a public good that is vital to the democratic health of their communities. They just don’t want to pay for it.”

According to Cox, only about 20% of Canadians are financially supporting news, either through subscriptions or donations.

The result: Media in a precarious state

This isn’t just a problem for newspapers, he added.

“Most people are unaware of the precarious state of local news, the fact that all local TV stations lose money on news,” he said.

The result for all media is less money for local news gathering, print, TV or radio.

“In many communities there remains the appearance of news sources, since newspapers still publish, but there is not the reality of local news, as very little money is put into news gathering,” he said.

“They call these ghost newspapers.”

So if readers are moving to digital, is that were newspapers should be placing their bets? Yes, said Cox, but it isn’t easy.

“Most of the newspaper industry is not positioned to survive the switch to digital,” he said. 

“The majority of their revenues are related to the sale of printed copies and the sale of advertising in those printed copies.”

Digital revenues not filling the gap

At the same time, digital advertising isn’t filling the gap left by the decline in print advertising.

The Free Press, he said, has digital revenues of about $5 million a year and expenses of $45 million—nowhere near enough to help keep it going.

Some bigger newspapers, like the New York Times, have made great strides, he said, and may soon earn enough from digital to cover the costs of its journalism.

But the Times has 3.2 million digital subscribers and a national audience, he observed. “Most of us are not in this game.”

What are the solutions?

If those are all the challenges, what are some solutions? Cox had a couple ideas if newspapers are to survive.

The first is to give up the printed newspaper—if digital revenues aren’t keeping up with expenses, the only thing left to do is reduce expenses, Cox said.

That means cutting print.

“Most of the $45 million in annual expenses at the Free Press is related to the cost of producing a manufactured good every day,” he said—things like buying paper, paying press operators, delivering the paper.

The newsroom budget, on the other hand, is only about 15% of total expenses.

“Strip away all the manufacturing and you have expenses of about $12 million to produce and present digitally all of that journalism,” he stated.

If that’s the case, $5 million of digital revenues “looks a lot more promising,” he stated.

And if only 20% of Winnipeggers subscribed to the Free Press digitally, he would be able to meet that budget, he stated.

“It is only when we embrace this future, and put our best efforts into achieving it, that we will really have our heads around keeping the newspaper alive,” he added.

The second idea is to find alternative, non-traditional sources of revenue to support journalism.

This includes things like what the Free Press is doing with faith coverage—soliciting support from faith groups to produce more articles about religion.

It also involves government support.

This includes funding for journalists to cover so-called news deserts—communities where there is little or no local news reporting anymore.

It also includes a refundable tax credit for employing journalists; a tax credit to encourage people to take out digital news subscriptions; and allowing news organizations that operate as not-for-profits and receive donations.

Although the federal government has spoken affirmatively about these ideas, Cox said, nothing has actually been done yet.

For him, this is a problem.

“Time is of the essence. I first went to Ottawa in January of 2016 to talk to bureaucrats and politicians about the crisis in newspapers and we’re still waiting. Government simply has not moved fast enough.”

Important to be honest and engage public more

The media also needs to engage the public more and make them aware of the dangers facing local news, he said.

“The general public is only vaguely aware of the threat,” he said, noting after a Quebec newspaper declared bankruptcy people in the local business community pledged more than $1 million to the newspaper.

“The problem is that we all don’t want to have to declare bankruptcy to find out if our communities will support us.”

Surveys have shown educating the public on the benefits of local news, and the fact that it is in trouble, increase the likelihood of support.

“My advice to people in newspapers at all levels is to tell readers about what is going on,” Cox said.

“Don’t cover up financial troubles, explain them. Give people the information that will allow them to act before it is too late.”

At the end of the day, “public support is the only hope we have,” he stated. 

“It always has been.”

A Simple & Effective Way to do a Video Interview (Also, No White Saviours)

No White Saviours is the name of a new Instagram account about how white people from the west can stop trying to save Africa—or other countries in the developing world.

According to the founders, “we never said 'no white people.' We just know you shouldn’t be the hero of the story.”

That’s an important message to hear. But that’s not why I am sharing it on this blog.

The reason I’m sharing it is because of the simple but neat way the BBC chose to interview the two women behind the campaign.

All the BBC did was a basic Q & A, posing the questions in text and then letting the women answer them in video.

There are no amazing graphics or photos; just two women talking.

Of course, the clip is edited for effect and length. But that happens in print or video.

Take a look. And if you are looking for simple and effective way to interview volunteers, recipients, staff, board members or others, consider giving this a try.

Read more about No White Saviours on Medium.

Read more about ways the BBC is trying to improve the online information and news experience.

From the BBC: Ways to Make Online Stories More Appealing to Younger Readers

Earlier I wrote about how the BBC was experimenting with different formats to attract and keep the attention of younger readers on mobile devices.

They tried 35 things, like expanders, jump-offs and viewpoints.

And what was the result?

“The clear favorite prototypes were about explaining things better and showing the many different sides to stories,” lead researcher Tristan Ferne says.

Among the things showing promise are expanders, incrementals, summarizing and asking why.

An expander is an in-text yellow ellipsis after a key term/event/name/etc. that pops out some more information when clicked.

An incremental is an embed that provides more options for learning about the story (e.g. a short video clip).

Another thing that seems to work is personalizing information for users (although the BBC doesn’t like the word “personalization”).

The BBC found users were happy to swap personal information like ZIP codes for adjusted news. News could then be adapted for the reader’s location.

Once the location was known, the BBC could then supply information that answered the question: “What does this mean for me?”

In the answer, readers could know the implications of a national policy change for where they live.

Summaries are also important. Readers can’t be expected to know what the bigger picture is all about; why is food needed in South Sudan? What is the genesis of the crisis? Or even where is South Sudan?

Another idea is what the BBC called “consequences.”

Similar to “what does this mean for me?”, it offers readers a button to learn more about the impact of an issue. (e.g. what a government cutback to health care might mean where they live.)

Asking why questions is important, too. It anticipates questions readers might have about an issue.

Why are people hungry in South Sudan? Why are LGBTQ people afraid in Kenya? Why don’t girls go to school in Afghanistan?

Again, it’s a way of not presuming the reader knows more than they do—or as much as the writer knows about the subject.

More information about the results of the BBC research can be found here.

The Future of Newspapers, or Can You Love a Foul Slum?

Many newspapers today are looking for ways to replace the their old business model of advertising and circulation revenue.

The thing that seems most attractive is the membership model.

It's an intriguing idea. People aren't customers any longer, but members. But what does membership mean?

Newspapers are struggling to find an answer to that question. 

From what I can tell, many are simply taking the old business-customer model and adding a few perks, things like special insider information, e-mails from the editor, access to journalists, or tote bags and mugs with the company logo. 

Nice, but I don't think that will do it. If the membership model is really going to work, newspapers (and other news platforms) are going to need to re-think their relationship with their readers.

They need to offer something else besides a newspaper, in print or digitally, or other inducements. 

And what is that?

They need to offer something that provides an emotional, or even a spiritual, payoff, something that provides a sense of having done the right thing, of being part of something bigger.

Say what? Why would anyone give money for something like that? 

Actually, it happens all the time. It's called giving to charity.

When people give money to charity, they don't expect to receive something in return.

They give because they want to help others, improve the quality of life on the planet, advance research into a disease, or some other charitable purpose.

Sure, they get a tax receipt, but research indicates that is not a prime motivator.

They may also benefit indirectly because they gave to groups that work to clean the oceans, do medical research, or help panhandlers get off the streets. 

But aside from those things, there is no direct benefit.

People give because it's the right thing to do, and because they believe, or hope, it will make the world a better place. (Or maybe make them into better people.)

Can something similar work for newspapers? I think it can.

After all, people already value something intangible made possible through journalism: Democracy.

A survey done earlier this year by Angus Reid found that 94% of Canadians believe journalism is important for the flourishing of democracy.

The New York Times seems to have figured this out.

When they send me e-mails, they don't just offer me X number of days of a subscription for Y number of dollars. 

Instead, they invite me to hold power to account.

They offer me something real, but intangible, in other words, something I cannot do myself. And that's the essence of charity. 

If I am moved by the plight of starving people in South Sudan, I give to an NGO that can use my gift to provide them with food.

I will not benefit from this gift. But others will. And I will feel better for it.

Can newspapers take a lesson or two from the philanthropic sector and apply it to their model?

I think they can. But it will require a change of perspective.

It will require editors and publishers to do what British author and philosopher G. K. Chesterton wrote about over 100 years ago to fix a foul London slum called Pimilco.

Today, Pimlico is a nice place to live. But  back at the turn of the last century it was a vile place. 

Chesterton’s solution was novel.

“The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico,” he said. “To love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason.”

If that happened, “then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles,” he wrote.

“If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence.”

Some people, he noted, “will say that this is a mere fantasy.”

His answer? “This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great . . . men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”

What does this have to do with newspapers?

If we loved our community, then we would want the best for it. And for a community to be its best, it needs a vibrant and robust local press.

That's why people should become members of a newspaper. Not because they get comics, sports and the crossword, but because it makes their community a better place to live.

In other words, what I might do for starving people a world away is something I can do for people in my hometown—and, indirectly, for myself.

In what Christians call the Old Testament, and what Jews call the Tanakh, the story is told in the book of Jeremiah about the people of Israel being taken captive to Babylon.

As it turns out, they will stay there a long time. What should they then do?

Says the prophet Jeremiah: “Pray to the Lord for it,” he said. “Because if it [Babylon] prospers, you too will prosper.”

I would say the same thing about local newspapers.

If it prospers, the city it serves prospers, and then we all prosper.

For more information about membership models for journalism, visit the Membership Puzzle Project.

Curiosity: The Most Important Thing for Communicators

A young friend—a student in a creative communications progam—recently asked me to name the one skill that has been especially useful to me in my career.

“It seems that the communications world is changing so much that some of the skills I put time into learning might not be as valuable years down the road,” he said.

“Can you think of skills that you've always improved upon that haven't gone out of style?”

What would you respond?

What I told him was that the most important thing for me in my 37 years of doing journalism, communications and marketing is not a skill at all.

It’s curiosity.

For me, if there is any one thing that separates great communicators from good or average communicators, it is being curious about the world.

Curiosity is not a skill; it is a quality of your personality, something you develop and nurture.

It is always asking: "Why?"

Fortunately, many of the people attracted to careers in journalism or communications are headed that way because they are curious—they want to know why the world works the way it does, or why people behave the way they do.

As for the skills needed to do communications, those will always be changing.

I have seen that up-close during my career.

Since I started in 1981, I've gone from the world of Gutenberg to the world of Google; from mailing press releases to fax to e-mail; from pasting up magazine pages to graphic design programs; from land lines to cell phones; from printed newspapers to social media.

It’s been an amazing and dizzying trip. So many changes! 

But one thing has always stayed the same for me: Being curious about the world, and then telling the stories I find along the way.

And when you are curious, there's no end to the stories you will find.

My friend Steve Bell put it this way, in the context of songwriting.

When people compliment him on the songs he writes, he demurs, telling them that the songs are all out there—he just bumps into them because he has his antennae up.

Similarly, good communicators are people who have their antennae up. They can’t help bumping into stories, no matter where they go—because stories are everywhere.

Of course, having good skills is also important, especially at a time when the way people receive information is changing so fast.

But just knowing how to use the latest technology isn’t enough. I have met skilled communicators who turn out pedestrian work.

The best communicators, in my opinion, are the ones who see stories that others don't. They have their antennae up all the time.

They are always alert and alive to the story ideas that are all around them; they can't stop looking for them.

After finding the stories, they need to know the best ways to tell them. That's where skill comes in.

But it all starts with curiosity, so you can use your skills to tell the stories you find. 

One of the best quotes about the role of technology versus storytelling comes from famed American journalist Edward R. Murrow.

Murrow, who died in 1965, never got to see how computers changed the way we communicate. He never knew about something called the Internet.

But he saw enough to know what they could—and couldn’t—do.

Said Murrow:

“The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it.”

That, and how to be, and stay, curious. 

Image above from The Hans India. 

New Story Formats to Attract Younger Readers Online

It’s the Holy Grail for communicators today: What will attract the attention of readers online, and then hold it?

(And if you don’t know what a Holy Grail is, then I’ve either piqued your interest or you’ve already moved on.)

That’s the quest the BBC set out on. (There’s that Grail image again.)

Over a period of eight weeks, the British broadcaster tried various new storytelling formats to see what kept younger people engaged.

In an article titled 12 Prototypes, Eight Weeks and Lots of Tapping, What’s Worked and Hasn’t in the BBC’s Quest for New Storytelling Formats, the broadcaster spent two months testing new ways of appealing to younger readers.

As Tristan Ferne, the lead producer for the BBC’s research and development unit put it: What could they do to “make online news more accessible, engaging and relevant to young people?”

Their goal was to move beyond just publishing several hundred words.

With a traditional article, “there is no interaction,” said Ferne.

“This audience is spending all their time in Snapchat and Twitter, where there’s constant interaction in the interface. There’s stuff to do with your thumbs: You can swipe, scroll, tap. We found that [users] expected that.”

What Worked

And so what did they find worked the best?

Expanders.

When readers see a highlighted text, they can click on it to pop out some more information. (Like above, with the holy grail, but keeping them on the page.)

With expanders references to various terms, events and ideas can be expanded to give readers context, definitions and additional information to help them understand the story better.

Jump Offs.

Don’t want to read the whole article? Readers can jump off by clicking on a different way of getting the same content—a video or audio clip, for example. It could be video or audio of the author saying, in his or her own words, the main point of the piece.

Fast Forward.

Not only should the video they jump to have subtitles, it should be easy to speed up or reverse. Skimmable video, in other words. (As in the image above from the BBC.)

After all, most people can read faster than others can talk. So why wait for them to say it?

Viewpoints.

Through viewpoints, readers are invited to share their opinions or vote on an issue. For example, after presenting an issue two points of view are expressed; readers are asked to vote for the one they favour, and share their own ideas.

What Didn’t Work

Not everything they tried worked, like the ideas below.

Atmosphere.

Setting the stage with background audio when users started reading an article was too distracting for testers. And maybe a bit cheesy, too.

Drawing In.

“We tried to present a story like the intro to a movie,” says Ferne. “We started with background sound and blurry visuals and as you scrolled it came into focus and there was a bit of background video, like the scene of the story before the story came in.”

But it didn’t work—people wanted to know right away what the story was about before investing time in it. No teasers!

                                                      *     *      *

Looking at the list, I feel tired; who has time to do all that? But if that’s the way communication is going, communicators will need to follow.

What are your thoughts?

Nine Ways Newspapers Can Reconnect with Readers

It’s no secret the media is in trouble.

Newspapers, in particular, are really on the ropes.

The main reason is the loss of advertising revenue. For decades, newspapers built their business model on businesses buying ads.

Circulation was still important, especially since it helped establish the price of ads. The more subscribers you had, the more you could charge for advertising.

But circulation wasn’t enough to pay the bills.

As the old adage put it, circulation paid for the paper and ink, but ads paid for the journalism.

When its business model fell apart, newspapers were in trouble.

Faced with the loss of advertising revenue, newspapers turned to the other source of dollars—readers.

But circulation was in decline, too.

At the very time newspapers needed readers to help them survive, they found many of them were gone.

Now they want to get them back, and attract new ones.

But how?

A new book out of Denmark offers some suggestions.

Titled The Journalistic Connection, the book is the result of year-long research in Europe and the U.S.

The authors visited 54 media companies pioneering new ways to connect with their audiences and communities and came up with nine suggestions for ways forward.

1. From neutrality to identity.

In order for people to relate and identity with the media, they must show “what you stand for,” the researchers say.

“Show them who you are, and from which perspective — geographically, socio-demographically, or politically — you view the world.”

2. From omnibus to niche.

 

“Apart from a very few media with global reach, all media can be considered niche operations. However, many broad-reaching legacy media hesitate to openly show and communicate which niche audience they seek to engage.”

 

Targeted niche media show it “is possible to create both quality journalism of high public value and cater to targeted audiences at the same time.”

 

3. From flock to club.

 

“Gathering people around the news media, in clearly defined communities — clubs — is a strategy gaining momentum on both sides of the Atlantic. This implies transforming what were formerly known as subscribers, users, or readers into members, that must either register or pay to join the inner circles of the crowd around the news media.”

 

4. From ink to sweat.

 

“Many media companies are pursuing new ways to create physical journalism in the form of public meetings, festivals, events, and stage plays. Live and engaging. And yes, they consider it journalism.”

(The Winnipeg Free Press experimented with something like this, with its cafe, as in the photo above.)

 

5. From speaking to listening.

 

“The legacy media business often has the character of a walled fortress more than of an open and accessible house. But both in the U.S. and Europe, news organizations are increasingly opening up — physically and mentally — in order to be more accessible to the citizens they serve.”

 

More than anything, “this means listening to citizens and creating more transparency in editorial matters. This can be done through direct personal dialogue, through physical presence in communities, or through the systematic use of small and big data.”

 

6. From arm’s length to cooperation.

 

“In order to maintain independence and neutrality, modern journalism has kept its distance, holding everyone outside the newsroom at arm’s length: citizens, interest groups, public institutions, private corporations, decision makers.”

 

However, “this pattern is clearly changing. More and more newsrooms are involving citizens directly throughout the journalistic process: from ideation to research to delivery of independent content to the subsequent debate of published stories.”

 

Without giving up editorial gate keeping, a number of media are working with local groups, NGOs and public institutions “as a way to create a both substantially deeper and more engaging journalism.”

 

7. From own to other platforms.

 

The consensus in the media today is that it “weakens business opportunities of the news media and their journalistic control when they put their content on social media.”

 

And “using social media is a double-edged sword. [B]ut handled in the right way — maybe more as a way to cooperate than distribute — social network technologies have big potential to enhance and deepen engagement, while at the same time creating stronger journalism.”

 

8. From problem to solution.

 

“Even the most hardcore investigative journalists have discovered they gain greater impact if they add a solution-oriented level to their work.”

 

Also known as solutions journalism, constructive journalism “creates more engagement among readers, users, viewers. They read more, they are more likely to share content, and they express more interest in knowing more about the issue when the piece has a constructive angle.”

 

9. From observers to activists.

 

Several news outlets are testing “whether they can create a new relevance to their readers, users, and viewers through activist campaigns or journalistic advocacy. This move is particularly controversial for many journalists.”

 

Conclusion

The researchers conclude that the media which are most successful at creating and maintaining ties with their readers, users, listeners and viewers “will increasingly be media that dare challenge some of the journalist dogmas of the last century: the dogma of arm’s length; the dogma of neutrality; the dogma of objectivity; the belief that journalists have a special ability to find and choose what is important for citizens.”

For journalism to be relevant for citizens in the future, they go on to say, “it will to a large extent need to challenge these deeply rooted professional dogmas, thus creating a media landscape that is more varied, more lively, more organically open to the citizens and much more diverse than the news industry we have seen for a hundred years.”

Challenging words. What do you think?