This post is more of a transcript of a conversation that started on Facebook late last night and ended with a phone call earlier today.
I asked friend and former colleague Rod Overton about his job search and whether or not anything was in the hopper. He’s been out of a job since June and I’d been seeing a lot of his comments on the blog LostRemote. My question opened the door for a really good chat.
He answered with this:
“The real problem now is that media companies simply don’t want the truth or common sense. Sizzle, pizzaz and not examining what is not working (and then cutting that) is what they want (sorry for the double negative, but you get the point — they don’t want anyone to look behind the curtain or say the emperor has no clothes.)”
I then asked Rod to tell me more and indicated that I was interested in posting some of what he was writing on my blog. He was happy to oblige:
“The common thread to most of my messages on Lostremote is that during this upheaval (TRB bankruptcy, Belo bankruptcy and McClatchy at 73 cents) publishers and editors (and to an extent TV GMs) are not taking advantage of the environment to make (what is to them) serious changes.
Instead they seem to hope to skate through it as unchanged as possible not realizing that the situation itself is showing them they need to change.
A selfish case-in-point: Someone with my skills goes unhired while people with skills that are quite easy to come by are retained and — in some pathetic cases — shifted to new media roles they will ruin just as the legacy product was ruined.”
Still with me? There’s more.
I called Rod this morning and we spoke a bit more about some of this. He told me some stories about his interviewing experiences and organizations so resistant to change I thought I was sitting in 1987. I knew it was true though because one of the most profound statements he made was this:
Newspapers are stuck on a singular solution!
He says no one wants to overhaul everything and create systemic change.
What he’s referring to is initiatives like writing shorter stories, or adding more color to the front page or including more photos and a digest of what else can be found inside.
Short-sighted solutions that tackle maybe one issue that are seen as the one solution that will change things for the better.
What are your thoughts on this? Are any other organizations or industries focusing on a singular solution? And is the emperor wearing anything at all? What do you think of Rod’s rant?
Thanks Rod, for the interesting conversation. And I hope you find something soon.
*If you’d like to connect with Rod, you can find him on Facebook and LinkedIn
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed
Stumble It!
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 9, 2009 at 8:20 am
Dick Carlson
I’ve seen similar reactions in other industries that I’ve been in over the years — “if we just bury our heads in the sand, it will all go away”.
I suspect that the Phoenix(s) that will rise from the ashes of the print journalism pyre will be mostly entirely new models and providers. To use a real-estate metaphor — a tear down is easier than a major remodel.
There are some interesting models showing up in terms of new communications — I love Loic LeMuir’s Seesmic as a model of a site built entirely on short videos from a community. At first glance, confusing. Then it becomes very interesting.
What other examples have you and Angela seen of “new from the ground up” models that you really thing exemplify both journalistic standards and some potential for a viable business model?
January 9, 2009 at 11:24 am
Angela Connor
@Dick: It’s no secret that I am a big fan of West Seattle Blog. I recently interviewed Tracy Record, co-publisher and editor of the site. I love what you said about a tear down being easier than a major remodel. Sounds like a book title to me, Dick.
Or at least a blog title. I may have to get with you for input on a post about that very concept.
I really think that the media organizations that embrace newer communication methods will flourish. Have you seen what CNN’s Rick Sanchez has done with incorporating twitter into an entire news program? That took buy-in, and it is quite clear that it was a smart move. I’ll invite Rod to come chime in on this post.
Angela
January 9, 2009 at 11:26 am
Joe Zlomek
Everything old is new again.
Remember when newspapers of decades ago were actually laid out in columns, not horizontal blocks? The reason: so they could be quickly and easily scanned by the reader’s eye. And those columns were heavy on what the industry knows as “item count,” short articles with short headlines that would pack more news into smaller spaces. The result: readers spent more time on each page, and also felt they got more value for their nickle from the editor.
Newspapers are no longer a nickle; instead, they’re 10 times that price or more. Item count has been discarded, in part because round-the-clock television news outlets excel at item count, so newspapers thought they had to excel at something else. Readers consequently flip through pages of long, longer, and longer-still stories, conclude there’s little for them to read, and stop buying newspapers.
As a long-time reporter, editor and publisher, I think Rod’s right on what he perceives as one of the industry’s problems. I’m unsure, however, that he’s accurate about its unwillingness to change. In print and online, I see a slow return to what will be newspapers’ life-saving roots: local news, lots of items, short reads, and a folksy, less pedantic style that people really have missed. Want an example? I’m proud to offer my own: The Sanatoga Post (www.sanatoga.org).
January 9, 2009 at 11:53 am
debspointofview
I feel Rod’s anguish and just a complete malaise at the state of the industry. I had a 10yr career with Newspapers and would have happily continued if I saw any shred of innovation or awareness of the need to transform and change.
A lot of the old school way of thinking is so deeply ingrained and it’s surprising that the outsourcing, layoffs, cost-cutting et. al. have not forced execs to truly take a look at their modus operandi.
I hope that somewhere, someone with a true innovator’s heart will grab hold of an idea and help turn the Titanic away from the icebergs.
January 9, 2009 at 1:05 pm
rodney overton
Hmmm… Not sure where to start.
First, thanks Angela for thinking that I have some decent ideas.
Next, I guess there is some change out there — and most editors keep saying they want it.
But, it’s the wrong kind that they seem to want.
Here are two key examples:
The Greensboro News & Record (where I worked from 1991 to 1999 and was their founding Internet news editor in 1996) embarked on a huge change effort a few years back. They launched a ton of blogs, essentially. It was touted and shouted from the rooftops. Editor and Publisher ran with it. Everybody treated the N&R as if they had developed the second coming. Newspapers sent their online people to Greensboro to “learn” what the hubub was about.
But, I was skeptical. I knew what the traffic was from blogs and I know that having reporters simply spew forth more of what people are turning off from print is not going to SAVE newspapers.
(And this is key: it’s not that doing blogs was a bad idea. It’s just that it is NOT — and was never going to be — the panecea. But, the News & Record was convinced it was. And, that is major problem — every BIG idea is seen as THE ultimate solution. When, in fact, it is 100 small changes that need to be made everywhere, to change things).
Anyway, the blogs continue to this day (although a few have since gone), but from what I can see engagement in them and traffic to them is not growing faster than the rate a site would grow anyway. In some cases I see many posts on their blogs not garnering any replies (the key sign of engagement).
The newspaper there did this thing: blogs. But, go click on their weather section? It just goes off to Weather Channel! Seriously. Sad. They focus so much on a “change” effort that the things they need to do go unchanged.
Next, was KHOU. When I arrived there in 2006 as Director of Digital Media there was this project that was ongoing — and was throughout Belo — in which reporters would sit down at a Web cam a couple of times a day and just TALK into the camera — for minutes upon minutes.
This was change? Sure. It SEEMED like it if you were the news director. But, again, the wrong kind. Why have a reporter doing a talking head piece for 5-10 minutes? It was awful. But, it was “change.”
I tried, but was unsuccessful, to get them to stop doing this and instead WRITE short stories. As anyone — who has half a brain knows — video only makes up (at the MOST) 6 percent of traffic on TV sites. So, why create more BAD video (talking heads) that no one will watch? Write stories that people will click on (and that can be promoted and other items attached to — such as photo galleries or other GOOD video)!
So, as you see, the problem is not the idea of change. Most publishers and editors SAY they want it. But, they really, really are still so afraid that they only want change that fits into their head of what is change. It’s not real change. It’s pretend change that results in nothing — except the false notion that something was done and that an attempt was made.
And, of course, nothing is ever tracked after it is implemented. Do you really think the N&R tracks how the blogs are doing? And, then, determines “oh, we should cut this one and instead assign this reporter to do these tasks on the site”? No one at Belo when I was there ever looked at the traffic to the reporter video face-plants to determine if it was working. (I did when I got there, but no one in Dallas or anywhere cared..)
Sigh.
The problem is that these “change” things have been touted SO MUCH that when editors now need to really do REAL change, they have a group of people in their midst who are tired of hearing “if we change this, then magic happens”
That will make it harder to do the real change, like completely overhauling how the newsroom works.
January 9, 2009 at 2:13 pm
rodney overton
Oh, and when even “change oriented” organizations get it in their head to make serious changes, they are SO freaking out about doing the change they never think if it is GOOD change.
Case in point: TV station KTBS in Sheveport, La. It hired some consultants (who I personally think have some periodic good ideas, but generally awful execution and some also very bad ideas) and came up with BIG CHANGE.
The change? Turn their site into a blog. Seriously. KTBS.com is just a blog — and not even a good one.
Instead of following the notion that works: try to put as much of a selection of stories and info on the homepage as an effort to get people to go deeper into your site (essentially, make it about news, but also a chance to highlight the best stuff everywhere on your site), they have dumped that. They also dumped the idea of news judgment — everything is thrown on the site just as it comes in (not in order of importance.)
Why? Who knows. It seems like “change” to do something different. But, is different WORKING?
It’s really scary, because the political capital that is expended at an organization to “make change” like this is precious. It is like gold. So, to spend that capital on change that is very, very bad is just… sad.
The “change” should be spent changing the entire organization — and how it works.
Instead, it was spent on creating a blog…. what a mess.
(NOTE: KTBS just recently added a “Top Stories” rotating module on the homepage at the top. This was after months of me complaining about what a bad idea the overall concept was. Perhaps someone is finally listening. Still can’t see a radar image on the homepage. Wow.)
Doing change like KTBS is doing it creates real problems when you really need to do REAL change to save your skin.
January 9, 2009 at 8:30 pm
rodney overton
One last point:
And, the top story on Poynter today is “Ethics Crashes on the Digital Media Highway” — a tale about (oh no!) how the quest for page views COULD create a disaster!!!
So, all other media (TV, radio, web) have to worry and concentrate on actual measurable results.
For the first time in EVER newspapers now are thinking about this aspect and being able to measure their work and their reaction is “Oh no! It’s the end of the world!”
Being able to measure what your audience wants should be something you look upon as a gift.
As it stands, newspapers have clearly been giving people something they DON’T want for 25 years now (and perhaps longer).
And NOW they are belly-aching because of the “ethics” of being able to tell what their audience wants?
Seriously…. what doomed fools.
One of the only things that could save them at this point is finally paying attention to what their audience wants and delivering that.
If editors are complaining about having to provide what their audience is demanding, then they need to be fired — before they competely drive newspapers into the dust bin of history.
The insight into their thinking about how they see this as a disaster tells us a lot about how they STILL want to cling to the idea that THEY should be able to dictate to their audience what THEY think is important.
Wow.
January 10, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Dick Carlson
Yes, I’d agree that “change for the sake of change” is usually pretty ineffective. From my standpoint (a learning wonk) the way “e-learning” burst on the scene is a good metaphor for what’s happening to journalism, I think.
The sheer idea that you could learn something via a computer was so sexy and different that nobody really cared if it was effective. Only recently are there any meaningful efforts at measuring if there really is a transfer of knowledge — and, guess what — the success record is very slim.
Here’s my prescription for success for you ink-stained wretches. (Realizing, of course, that I know nothing of actual journalism. Which may make it easier for me to see the lack of clothes.)
================
Step 1: Decide if you want to be the most popular girl in school, or the smartest girl in school, or the girl that all the guys sleep with. You won’t be able to be all three, and probably not even two of these. In television terms, Walter Cronkite was the smartest. Larry King was the most popular. Geraldo Rivera was the most promiscuous.
<Step 2: Identify a business model that will fill your coffers, based on the goal you identified in Step 1. It will be wildly different, I submit — much like the shows of the three gentlemen I named. But have a business model, test it, validate it, and then — this is the scary part — actually stick with it.
<Step 3:: Continue to measure, refine, measure, refine, and repeat. What was working six months ago is old news, pun intended. Nothing is chiseled in stone, pun intended. You can’t lock up the type, pun intended.
=====================
What I see are tiny newspapers in my little part of SC that have online stories mostly about national news. (Useless — I can go to the big boys.) They have recipes, fashion tips, and lots of other information that are provided in a much more effective fashion elsewhere.
But there’s one that has high school football videos, shot by fans, and uploaded that night. WOW!
There’s another that has a very popular feature (hold your nose) where a daily picture is posted and readers write a caption. WOW! (It gets more comments than any editorial blog or feature.)
There’s one that has local dining reviews with discounts attached — WOW!
(Now, realize — I’m using “WOW” in the sense that this is stuff that would not qualify as rocket surgery. But it’s something that gets the locals to the site, makes them spend quality time, and causes ad clickthrough.)
Maybe it’s more difficult than it looks from the outside. But if I sold fish, I’d focus on the ones that people bought, and quit trying to sell the ones that sat in the cooler for days and got rotten.
(Newspaper pun slyly intended.)
January 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Guest post - 8 things newspapers need to do right now to survive « Online Community Strategist
[...] post was written by Rod Overton, the recently laid-off web guru who was the subject of this post about the newspaper [...]
October 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The Cleveland Plain Dealer finally acknowledges user comments « Online Community Strategist
[...] edited but are now everywhere. The loss of control and more importantly, the role of gatekeeper has been paralyzing for many news organizations. (If you want to read some great posts about this phenomenon, read Mark [...]