The primary audience for newspapers is 40+, but they're made for 70-year-olds. The changes that editors make are so subtle that no one outside the building notices them. Being unconventional doesn't mean dumbing down the paper. More is not better; better is better. It's not unusual to hear publishers and editors voice such sentiments privately. These come quasi-publicly from Lee Abrams, Tribune Co.'s new chief innovation officer, via a blog for Tribune employees but helpfully provided at regular intervals by the ever- resourceful Romenesko.
Abrams' musings draw fire, as one might expect, in the blogosphere on a variety of fronts: his prose isn't polished; he capitalizes words for emphasis; he's not a journalist; what does a radio guy know about print/interactive publishing; he's stating the obvious; he's so 1980; he's trying to resuscitate a corpse, and so on.
So shoot the messenger - but isn't much of his message on target? Let's consider a few of his observations about newspapers in general:
Newspapers "are rife with assumptions. That people will find great stories... that the paper will get credit for breaking stories... that the writers are known commodities..."
I agree, and so does the research. On a very basic level, the Impact study demonstrated that signaling, navigation and content promotion are absolute necessities. The Experience study found that "I connect with the writer" is a strong motivator for readers, but they don't get much of that experience from newspapers.
Newspapers should have more "swagger."
If he's talking about vigor and a spirited presence, rather than cockiness, then he is spot on. Again, think about the experiences that people crave with news media. Most of them are stimulating and active – Looks out for my interests; Gives me something to talk about; Touches and inspires me; Grabs me visually, etc.
He suggests that newspapers "own" and be known for categories of news – crime, terrorism, the election, sports, health, whatever topics are of great and abiding interest – and pull out all the stops. "Cover your (content) trademarks with NOTICEABLE (key word) brilliance..." One small way of reinforcing these trademarks, he suggests, is to have a consistent location where news on that topic is updated.
We tested a similar news-tracking idea a few years ago, where ongoing, high-profile stories were updated every day with refers and links to related stories. Consumers loved it.
And on the larger question of categories: doesn't it just make good horse sense to put resources against the topics that consistently matter to readers?
"People haven't stopped reading... maybe we've just stopped giving them something they gotta read."
Yes. Now we get close to what I think is the most uncomfortable truth for many daily newspapers. Treatment, packaging, design, marketing – all are important, but you have to have the right stuff to begin with. It's not uncommon to watch readers page through a paper without being stopped by an arresting story or visual. Does that mean that they're shallow, or that the community is dull, or that it was a slow news day? Or does it say more about the newsroom's commitment to discover news and tell people something they don't know about something they care about?
Granted, when you're churning out news every working hour, it's easy to slip into a formulaic approach. I like the way the Jackson Hole News used these fake headlines on a mock front page on the newsroom bulletin board as a caution:
Boring Stuff Debated at Dull Meeting Something Crashes, Burns or Blows Up Some Old Politician Retires or Dies Another Project That Will Cost Lots & Lots of Dollars Hey! They're Doing that Wacky Thing Over There
"Pull triggers fast. Don't over-think... The degree of over-analysis and slow reaction is astounding... Dragging on for eternity and in many cases EVENTUALLY delivering a watered-down concept is EXACTLY what they are laughing about in other media."
He's right; our culture studies prove it. But it doesn't have to be that way. The Wichita Eagle, for example, used a "charrette" process to overcome institutional lethargy and create new sections, content and approaches in short order.
I don't think Abrams' ideas are going to bring back a golden age of newspapers or news-anything and I doubt if he thinks so either. He's talking about maximizing and leveraging an unrivalled news apparatus with a solid brand, which is what every newspaper organization has in its community. He sees potential. He's challenging employees to "AFDI: actually friggin' do it." Good advice to us all.
By Mary Nesbitt (m-nesbitt@northwestern.edu) Mary Nesbitt is managing director of the Readership Institute.
