After declaring (again) the death (or at least the dying) of print, bloggers and academics have clothed their straw man with proposals that include even government subsidies. It’s not just print that’s in peril, but real, investigative, long-form journalism. But print’s not dead yet, neither is the argument, and bloggers might just lead the resuscitation efforts for journalism itself.
The print-is-dead argument is a bit of a straw man because the scarecrow is still awaiting the (tech) wizard to give it life. Fact is, people are still buying newspapers. Fact is, they’re still making money, especially small local papers, even if it’s less money as the market changes. That means layoffs, and it means some publications with too much overhead shut down.
But dead implies extinction, and I think it might be better to look at it through an evolutionary lens. That is, print must evolve, as journalism must.
A gadget like Amazon’s Kindle (once streamlined and less expensive – compare 50 cents to $300) has the potential to transform the way people access the written word. It is conceivable, some time in the distant future, that the newspaper box is replaced with a downloading station near the parking meter – the special parking meter designed not only to take payment via mobile device, but to charge for the space above in addition to the right and left. Talk about double parking.
But that hasn’t happened yet, and it will take a while if it ever does.
Though small town newspapers beg to differ about the death of print media, as do collectors of worldwide subscription data who report record numbers, we saw a couple of print casualties in 2007.
But just like in any business, the inability to adapt is often what drives the extinction of a species. In this case, market forces, environments, and technologies are changing much more rapidly than society’s habits, or even wants.
There are still romantics out there, even in this generation. People still like their morning newspaper with their coffee; they like to fold up a paper and tuck it under their arm; they still like the smell of books and the look of them on their bookshelves.
At some point, I imagine, there will be new-wave romantics who would rather irradiate themselves with technology than cut down trees to support an old-world way of doing things. Until then, there is market evolution.
The threats to print and long-form journalism are these: market saturation, which dilutes not just audiences, but advertisers; high overhead; craigslist; local search; babies being born right now.
The question, then, is about how to adapt. Some are cutting staff and other costs. Some are closing their print face and going online exclusively. Some are using their online income to supplement their print side. Some are cutting just how investigative they’re going to get about news. Some are selling out to conglomerates who are better at adapting, have the resources to adapt, and who have lessened the competition for ad sales by buying up the competition.
And that’s a whole mess of problems, especially for the purists – the high-minded academics suddenly very seriously considering government subsidies to save real journalism.
But there’s something else going on that’s interesting, and may play a role in how the industry evolves. Like I said, the days of print (on paper) are likely numbered, even if the number of days is larger than Silicon Valley might expect. But for long-form journalism there is hope without a government bailout.
What brings it to mind is a catty back-and-forth between three of the preeminent bloggers in the blogosphere: Mike Arrington, Robert Scoble, and Dave Winer. Last week, Arrington labeled Scoble a sellout for breaking down and accepting ads for his blog.
That’s some interesting needling when you consider Arrington “sold out” years ago by accepting advertising for his blog, TechCrunch. Winer, the purist, reportedly complained about that development, but more recently has lost interest in the franchise altogether.
The name-calling and backbiting are not what’s important here. What is important is why Scoble says he will accept advertising:
Because it will let me hire people to produce more content.
I watched how Mike Arrington turned his blog into something that now employs more than 10 people.
Journalism is under attack because the business models for journalism are disappearing.
Fast Company [Scoble’s new employer] told me that they have a great business model that can support more journalism. The magazine’s advertising sales were up 40% last year. They are investing in journalism. In editing. In content.
And there it is, the heart of the evolution. Low overhead, readership, and space to sell are the buds of new life on the tree of journalism. The beauty of online writers is that they don’t have to be in-house. They don’t have to cost the publisher money in travel fees, if the publisher has successfully employed bloggers (okay, you might call them reporters, now) around the world, right near the action.
Blognation didn’t fail because it was a bad idea. It failed because the founder served up his network of Associated Bloggers a big ol’ bucket of fail via dishonesty and inability to secure funding.
What Sam Sethi flubbed (miserably flubbed), the Arringtons and the Scobles of the world (perhaps with a little more vision and ambition, says Winer anyway) will make work, this century’s Pulitzers and Hearsts.
And not to pat myself on the back or anything, I did sort of mention the seeds of the Associated Blogosphere back in 2006. Enjoy the rest of spring as the seeds bud, without government intervention, without having to proclaim the death of anything, especially not, if done right, long-form journalism.
