Magazine and newspaper editors have canceled their annual conferences (good idea: let’s not talk to one another). But perhaps someone can blow a secret whistle and the publishers and editors could all meet at an undisclosed location.
My fantasy meeting goes something like this: a rump caucus could form where the newspaper industry would decide to hold hands and jump off the following cliffs together on the following actions.
• No more free content.
• No more free ride to aggregators.
• No more commoditized ads.
• Throw out the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Read the full article in the New York Times
My fantasy meeting goes something like this: a rump caucus could form where the newspaper industry would decide to hold hands and jump off the following cliffs together on the following actions.
• No more free content.
• No more free ride to aggregators.
• No more commoditized ads.
• Throw out the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Read the full article in the New York Times
I have no idea why newspapers have conceded their primary advantage over the web--their sense of place. In a near-panicked response they (seemingly) have decided that the solution is to homoginize their approach and attempt to compete with the web rather than build on their strengths.
Where, for example, is the diversity of design? Print is an ideal medium for experimentation yet we see, in most cases, the same old nameplates atop the same old layouts.
And where is the branding? Why aren't newspapers asking, "What aspects of our community make us unique?" and "How can we brand ourselves in a way that makes it difficult for others to copy?"
It goes to show, if you think of your organization in the context of negative statistics, it can easily become one. If you look at it as the expeption, it can be exceptional.
Posted by: Chuck Green | March 10, 2009 at 12:33 PM