Helpless newspaper industry
Column: The Panic of Decision-Makers: Five Follies on the Path to Self-Cannibalization.
Column The panic of decision-makers: Five follies on the road to self-cannibalizationThe industry press may celebrate the incident with a news flash - because, from a purely geographical point of view, the event took place far away: for the third time in three years, the Los Angeles Times, one of the world's great quality newspapers, has lost its editor-in-chief because he lost out in a gruelling clinch with the company's management over the appropriate resources for his editorial office. It is not only in California, however, that editor-in-chief's chairs have become uncomfortable ejector seats from which even journalists spoiled by success are catapulted out overnight. This is an alarm signal, but also a sign of helplessness.
An alarm signal, because the triple failure gives an idea of how much energy has been consumed in cutback management and how heated the mood must be in an editorial office that lurches from one drastic round of cuts to the next - also because its newspaper has become the plaything of investors who are suspected, not without good reason, of wanting to cash in as soon as possible and not tie up their funds in the long term in an industry that seems doomed.
A sign of helplessness, because at the moment nobody in the newspaper industry knows whether and how money can still be earned with quality journalism on printed paper in ten years' time. This is obviously leading to panic reactions, even among experienced decision-makers, which can only be described as self-cannibalization:
Folly No. 1 was to offer "everything for free" online, which, if produced using conventional printing technology, would still be expensive to sell. Imagine Coca Cola giving away its brew in modern plastic bottles, while raising the price of the same product in glass. It is hardly any different for all those publishers who put their content online for "free" while continuing to charge for printed paper via the old distribution channels. The value of their own highly respected brands was recognized too late in the newspaper industry - and tarnished by playing cheap on the web for fear of Microsoft, Google & Co.
Folly no. 2 was and is to flood the newspaper market itself with free products. Although this initially made a lot of money in Switzerland (20 Minuten), the imitators (Cash daily, heute, .ch and News) are already having a much harder time. However, all of them together are certainly causing damage to the (mostly in-house) quality titles. For one thing, the advertising market for print products is not unlimited. Secondly, it is not only Blick readers who are switching to free titles. Presumably, each and every one of us will occasionally take advantage of this - and thus save a few francs that we would have to pay at the newsstand for a quality paper and that their editorial teams urgently need.
Folly no. 3 is a direct consequence of folly nos. 1 and 2: Where there is no longer enough money for in-house editorial work, the floodgates are wide open for free PR supplies. Successful in
However, PR placed in the editorial section undermines journalistic credibility. And it also reduces the advertising revenue of newspaper publishers if the intended communication purpose can be achieved more cheaply through public relations than with an advertisement.
The fact that good business can be done with "collateral products" was recognized by publishers as late as the brand value of their publications themselves - but late is better than too late.
Folly no. 4, however, is to promote the company's own labels and products in the editorial section without any inhibitions. This also undermines the credibility of journalism, at least for intelligent readers.
Folly no. 5 was and is to plunder editorial budgets at will. When healthy flesh is amputated, editorial offices bleed to death; journalistic quality and credibility are once again damaged - and folly no. 3 is further encouraged.
The tragicomedy of the Los Angeles Times is that the beginning of its decline is blamed on a top manager who, as an industry outsider, showed his newspaper and the industry ways out of the crisis in an almost visionary way: Mark Willes. The man, who came from the food industry, brought with him clever marketing ideas that could have saved the big newspaper tanker from rocking without damaging the paper's integrity. Instead of following his lead, he was scandalized by his own editorial team and competitors - and ultimately stripped of his power.
Willes is now retired and living in Hawaii. He will probably be waiting with bated breath to see when people in Los Angeles, and perhaps also in Europe, return to his concepts instead of wearing out one editor-in-chief after another.
Stephan Russ-Mohl heads the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.
An alarm signal, because the triple failure gives an idea of how much energy has been consumed in cutback management and how heated the mood must be in an editorial office that lurches from one drastic round of cuts to the next - also because its newspaper has become the plaything of investors who are suspected, not without good reason, of wanting to cash in as soon as possible and not tie up their funds in the long term in an industry that seems doomed.
A sign of helplessness, because at the moment nobody in the newspaper industry knows whether and how money can still be earned with quality journalism on printed paper in ten years' time. This is obviously leading to panic reactions, even among experienced decision-makers, which can only be described as self-cannibalization:
Folly No. 1 was to offer "everything for free" online, which, if produced using conventional printing technology, would still be expensive to sell. Imagine Coca Cola giving away its brew in modern plastic bottles, while raising the price of the same product in glass. It is hardly any different for all those publishers who put their content online for "free" while continuing to charge for printed paper via the old distribution channels. The value of their own highly respected brands was recognized too late in the newspaper industry - and tarnished by playing cheap on the web for fear of Microsoft, Google & Co.
Folly no. 2 was and is to flood the newspaper market itself with free products. Although this initially made a lot of money in Switzerland (20 Minuten), the imitators (Cash daily, heute, .ch and News) are already having a much harder time. However, all of them together are certainly causing damage to the (mostly in-house) quality titles. For one thing, the advertising market for print products is not unlimited. Secondly, it is not only Blick readers who are switching to free titles. Presumably, each and every one of us will occasionally take advantage of this - and thus save a few francs that we would have to pay at the newsstand for a quality paper and that their editorial teams urgently need.
Folly no. 3 is a direct consequence of folly nos. 1 and 2: Where there is no longer enough money for in-house editorial work, the floodgates are wide open for free PR supplies. Successful in
However, PR placed in the editorial section undermines journalistic credibility. And it also reduces the advertising revenue of newspaper publishers if the intended communication purpose can be achieved more cheaply through public relations than with an advertisement.
The fact that good business can be done with "collateral products" was recognized by publishers as late as the brand value of their publications themselves - but late is better than too late.
Folly no. 4, however, is to promote the company's own labels and products in the editorial section without any inhibitions. This also undermines the credibility of journalism, at least for intelligent readers.
Folly no. 5 was and is to plunder editorial budgets at will. When healthy flesh is amputated, editorial offices bleed to death; journalistic quality and credibility are once again damaged - and folly no. 3 is further encouraged.
The tragicomedy of the Los Angeles Times is that the beginning of its decline is blamed on a top manager who, as an industry outsider, showed his newspaper and the industry ways out of the crisis in an almost visionary way: Mark Willes. The man, who came from the food industry, brought with him clever marketing ideas that could have saved the big newspaper tanker from rocking without damaging the paper's integrity. Instead of following his lead, he was scandalized by his own editorial team and competitors - and ultimately stripped of his power.
Willes is now retired and living in Hawaii. He will probably be waiting with bated breath to see when people in Los Angeles, and perhaps also in Europe, return to his concepts instead of wearing out one editor-in-chief after another.
Stephan Russ-Mohl heads the European Journalism Observatory at the University of Lugano.
