Confusing their need for income with a desire among customers to pay for content, the papers are about to hand over their audiences following the lead of the Dirty Digger.

They made you and you friends redundant, they froze your pay, they made [...]]]> Journalists! Now is the time to start your own news site.

Confusing their need for income with a desire among customers to pay for content, the papers are about to hand over their audiences following the lead of the Dirty Digger.

They made you and you friends redundant, they froze your pay, they made you write umpteen stories a day during 12-hour shifts in increasingly empty newsrooms. And all the while they creamed off ludicrous profits. Now they want the online reader to foot the bill.

It’s an enormous mistake but it’s great news for the future of journalism.

Murdoch’s wrong because everything about the net is moving towards sharing and the free movement of content. Hiding content behing barriers simply ignores how most people access it.

Murdoch, Lionel Barber and the other pro-chargers assume that because they need a lot of money that people will pay to access news and comment online. But that’s not how life works. Something is only worth what people will pay for it.

Charging for news has alwyas been bonkers. How can you put a barrier round “Lord Jones is dead”? It is instantly, immediately copiable without contravening any known or possible copyright laws.

In essence, the problem is that of Spotify vs iTunes. Spotify lets you listen to  unlimited amounts of music from a vast playlist. It’s free but the catch is you don’t get to download or keep any of it. If you want to own it, you need to hop onto iTunes and buy a download.

The problem is that online news and comment is like most music on Spotify – you access it once and walk away. Unlike with music, though, there are very, very few news or comment items that you would pay to keep for ever.

However, news media companies do have access to a suite of products that people will pay to keep – and that are more suited than the web to the presentation of all that high-quality fabby content that the moguls have been boasting of: print.

You see, it’s not the online products that are broken: it’s the print ones. Just because large numbers of readers don’t like the one size fits all version doesn’t mean that that’s it for print. And it doesn’t mean they’re suddenly going to want to pay for material online.

So what’s the good news for journalism?

Well, when J Arthur Reader pops online to enquire after the health of Lord Jones, what will he do when he sees that all the “Lord Jones is dead” stories from the mainstream news organisations are behind payment barriers? Will he A) get out his chequebook or B) read the story for free somewhere else?

And what is to stop journalists from setting up their own nimble news enterprises to supply that free news? (Sure there’s the BBC but it can’t do attitude or opinion.) These specialist enterpises would have no legacy costs and which could make use of targeted print products to boost revenue. They could even co-operate with other non-competing enterprises to buy back-room services (ad sales, printing, IT).

When the big boys shoot themselves in the foot, it’s a great time to challenge them to a race.

The Scotsman is dying. So is The Herald. Here are some notes towards a plan to save them – and all newspapers. I’d like to see a consortium to put this into practice and save Scotland’s native, quality, national press for the nation. This isn’t born out of delusion but rather a [...]]]>

The Scotsman is dying. So is The Herald. Here are some notes towards a plan to save them – and all newspapers. I’d like to see a consortium to put this into practice and save Scotland’s native, quality, national press for the nation. This isn’t born out of delusion but rather a few discussions I’ve had with like-minded senior journalists who believe that the money can be raised and that this is last chance to save these two titles.

A merger of sorts

Nobody likes this option but nearly everyone agrees it’s the way forward. In its most commonly described form, this is not the solution, however, merely a way of buying a little time for both publications. As things currently stand, if one title took over the other it would pick up so few readers and advertisers as to render the exercise pointless.

However, there is a cleverer way: merge the businesses but keep the titles largely separate. This would involve cutting costs by streamlining the “backroom” functions of both organisations: sales, IT, printing, etc.

Scotland has in it enough talented journalists to make one world-class newsroom strong enough to send the tartanised English editions hameward to think again. With this in mind, some parts of the papers themselves could be “merged” in the sense that the same content for these sections would appear in both papers. The aim here would not be to cut costs but to increase quality. While The Herald and Scotsman have distinct voices when it comes to Scottish news, politics, business, opinion and maybe sport but UK news, foreign news, TV listings and features could be shared between them, if it meant the coverage of these areas was better.

However, this will only work if the economic model behind the papers changes.

A matter of trust

There is no point in someone buying The Scotsman and/or Herald and trying to run them at Johnston Press/Gannett profit levels. The days of screwing 20-35% profit margins out of papers are dead for ever.

Similarly, there is not much point in the papers being bought by a billionaire with an agenda. The Scotsman has already been through that with the Barclays and Andrew Neil. What is required is a set-up that guarantees editorial independence, sustainable returns and reinvestment for the long-term health of the business. This means a trust, along the lines of the ones that own the Irish Times and The Guardian.

Web first

The first thing both papers need to sort out is the online dimension. The Herald site has always been an embarrassment (though it’s classifieds brands, especially S1jobs, are strong). And  scotsman.com was a tremendous property until Johnston Press got involved.

There is still a lot of potential for substantial online revenue, if the sites are managed correctly. Despite the best efforts of JP, scotsman.com is still visited by some two million unique users a month, the Herald by 500,000.

Design: Obviously the sites need to look and work a whole lot better. They should be tag-based sites that offer related articles (naturally), rating, sharing, “most read”, “latest comments”, trackbacks and basically all the functionality we associate with WordPress and other blogging software.

Archives: Every single article possible from the past should be published online. This will drive online revenue from existing editorial assets.

Online first: Stories should be published online first. We want to avoid telling people things that they’ve already known for 18 hours. Reader reaction can then inform what appears in print the next day and help move stories forward. A lot of effort should be put into online only features which drive content to older material. Lists, guides and galleries are wonderful tools for doing this.

Comment: In one year, scotsman.com received 700,000 reader comments, the vast majority of which added a great deal to the value of the site – and its revenue. Comment is a vital tool for any serious online publisher. What scotsman.com lacked and what the Herald’s 9-5 moderators fail to provide is proper moderation. A system will need to be devised to encourage lively debate but keep the “green inkies” at bay.

User generated content: The best way to get people to buy a paper is to put their names in it. And the best way to make them feel valued and involved is to tell their stories. This is not some web2-fanboy suggestion for a reader-written paper. (The skills of writing grammatically, spelling properly, identifying interesting information and presenting it clearly are restricted to a tiny proportion of the population – and not enough journalists.) It is a recognition that we need to get closer to the readers by using their words and pictures. We experimented with this at scotsman.com and it worked very well.

Learn from traffic: scotsman.com was one of Google News’s top 30 sites worldwide. We acheived this by seeing what worked and doing more of it. I’m not suggesting that the Scottish papers of the future should only write stories about sex and kittens but they should take a more analytical approach to what they commission.

Getting clever about online revenue

Many of the new models for journalism being touted (for instance, by Jeff Jarvis) don’t take into account the fact that professional journalists actually want to make a living.

The reason for this is that there is a key problem for online content. For a site to be successful it needs to have unique content, quality content, lots of content and content that does not cost more than the revenue it generates. This is an impossible square to circle. However, The Scotsman and Herald have opportunities to round off the edges a bit.

Get the basics right: First of all, they should be able to properly monetise their existing properties. Certainly, scotsman.com has not been backed up by a sophisticated online advertising team.

Maximise sponsorship: The beauty of a tag-based site is that every keyword becomes a sponsorship opportunity, with the option for each tag’s landing page to be associated with an advertiser. Other properties, such as RSS feeds and email newsletters, are rich sources of ad revenue.

US market: At its height, scotsman.com was attracting 4 million unique users a month (ABCe audited figures). Unsurprisingly, most of that traffic did not come from Scotland but the vast majority of advertising effort went into UK advertising.  A concerted attempt to reach the more lucrative US market with imaginative products should yield very healthy ad revenue.

Hyperlocal ads: Closer to home, not enough effort has been made to make cheap adverts work for small businesses online. There needs to be a realisation that “no ad is too small”.

Reinventing print

Print will never die: The internet does not mean the death of print. It does not mean the death of newspapers. What it means is a reinvention of how print fits into the economic model. Aside from its permanence and intrinsic romance, there will always be a demand for a print product of some kind. Print has advantages over new media in some areas, especially when it comes to consuming longer articles and complex information. However, some things need to change.

More meat, less filler: I heartily recommend Drew Curtis’s “It’s not news, it’s Fark – how mainstream media tries to pass crap off as news” as an exercise in learning what’s wrong with our industry. The days of recycling PA and agency copy to fill space are dead. News agencies big and small frequently post their news stories online so those stories are “out there” hours before their retreaded versions appear on the newspaper stands.

Digests, depth and your paper:

The newspaper of the (very near) future will offer summaries of the stories that people can find elsewhere. It will serve as a resource to point readers towards interesting nuggets in the vast landslide of information they are faced with.

The paper should then offer in-depth coverage of its own exclusives (remember them?) and a couple of major issues of the day. By in-depth, I mean lavish, luscious coverage designed to inform, entertain and amaze – outdoing the tartan editions of the London press.

In terms of sales, the Scottish press needs to learn from the Metro. Cheap news that has been regurgitated from PA is judged to have no value by the market. It is given away free. It is therefore no longer reasonable to ask people to pay for products filled with this kind of material.

However, valuable lessons can be learned from the Metro phenomenon. There is a place for free print products. But these should be thought of mainly as a promotional tool for the main revenue generators: the website and the main printed product.

A key lesson of the collapse in newspaper sales is that tens of thousands of people are no longer willing to spend about a £1 a day for news.

However, I believe there is a market for print as a prestige purchase. Readers like to identify themselves as Scotsman or Herald readers – despite the decline in quality of these titles. There is value here – if a product can be created that feels like it is in the premium bracket. Thanks to advances if print technology papers can now offer personalised editions. Rather than have to buy the “shotgun” mix of stories and sections, readers can be given “their” version of the paper. In my case that would be all the news sections, sport and opinion. (I have no need of re-Heated celeb features.) If that paper was delivered to my home I would be prepared to pay extra for it.

Such personalisation would be carried out online at the moment that the user subscribed to the paper. It is important to note that, despite the stubbornness of UK papers, home delivery is the only way to lock in readers. We have to lower the barriers to them buying the product and that means making it as convenient as possible.

Conclusion

So there’s my plan. Chuck rocks at it. Mock it. But remember that no matter how far-fetched or unreasonable it seems it still makes far more sense than trying to save your business by making the product weaker.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… C: wait… SD: wait…

So many hearty gratz to my many former scotsman.com colleagues who work there and to Robin Hodge, their all [...]]]> Hurrah for those very decent people at The List – Edinburgh and Glasgow’s listings magazine. Their website won “Best Online Presence” at the 2008 Scottish Magazine Awards.

So many hearty gratz to my many former scotsman.com colleagues who work there and to Robin Hodge, their all round good egg publisher.

Yay for the good guys!