Jun 1, 2010

Justin Bieber will not save journalism.

Long weekends are always good for catching up on important reading. For example, this long New York Times article (epic by online standards) gives great insight into how some entrepreneurial news outlets are making it in the New World Order. Websites such as True/Slant and Examiner turn a buck by maintaining low overhead, basing their writers’ wages on page views and thus advertising revenue.

It’s a kicker for the online news environment to rely on this same tired, old business model that has newspapers circling the drain: a nearly complete reliance on ad sales to keep business going. In the print world, selling ads meant generating fluff stories that appealed to readers. Online, it means keeping tabs on Twitter’s trending topics — prepubescent pop star Justin Bieber seems to be the shit these days — and then cranking out fluff copy on those subjects to woo Google and other search bots.

Despite inflated page views and low overhead, True/Slant and Examiner have yet to turn a profit. It’s pathetic. PAH-thetic.

Of course, some hyperlocal news sites have done well for themselves strictly through ad sales. The hyperlocal economies of those beats are healthy enough to support such publications and their writers, so if the business model ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.

But what if this Great Recession treats the economy to a summer sequel? Or what if (for whatever reason) page views don’t translate to ad sales? Even worse, what if the quality of reporting suffers because writers can’t or don’t get paid? Then it’s time to have an alternate revenue stream ready, if it isn’t already up and running.

The New World Order demands innovative strategies for generating revenue, and I don’t just mean psyching out the search engines to drive page views. It means hosting events with cover charges, offering web-design services, selling stock photography, and forming Groupon-like arrangements with local businesses to sell products beyond news. It might also mean converting a for-profit project into a nonprofit one to bring in donations, or charging subscription fees for premium content.

It should not mean fluff content cranked out by pay-per-click writers. If a hyperlocal news site’s business model supports nothing but that, then it’s working either the wrong model or the wrong business. Innovative and diversified revenue streams beget better pay, better writers and less Bieber.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Daniel Ogren.

May 17, 2010

Back in the saddle again

The prodigal hyperlocalist is back after exploring what I’d hoped would be an opportunity to break into my local market. It didn’t work out for one big reason: In my opinion, I didn’t earn a wage that was commensurate with the amount of work involved. That’s how things roll. Failure is always an option.

But it’s important to learn from the experience, and here’s what I learned: I should practice what I preach. In February, I tore into The New York Times from my cyber-soapbox for its plan to have CUNY J-school students run two of its hyperlocal news sites:

[T]he Times-CUNY arrangement smells like the exploitation of a relatively skilled labor force willing to work for nothing more than a byline, exposure and a good grade. Teaching student and citizen journalists that craft and livelihood are incompatible is the wrong lesson. Instead, quality journalism should be rewarded.

It made sense to me then, though it would have made more sense to heed those words. Instead, I let destitution lead me to work for less than peanuts, for a “news” website that offered exposure but actually relied on its writers to deliver an audience.

For two weeks, I saw my page views beat the site’s average three- to fivefold, but the pennies per page view weren’t doing it for me. Meanwhile, I imagined the website’s publisher promoting its higher page views to trump up ad rates and sales, not by pennies but by dollars.

There was also the issue of who my fellow content contributors were. Some of them were topic experts but not the best writers. Others posted press releases, and there’s no telling if they were compensated in other ways for that content.

Frankly, that wasn’t the online company I wanted to keep. So few publications can successfully serve fluffy cotton candy with blood-rare prime rib and make it palatable. Playboy pulled it off back in the day — only The Heff can publish T, A and X in the same issue and make it work. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case with the website for which I wrote.

In the end, I decided it would be better to work for free while developing my strengths (and identifying my weaknesses) as a hyperlocalist. So here I am, back in the saddle again.

I’ve got lots of interesting stuff coming up this week and next, including thoughts on crowd-sourced content, further ideas on news distribution via text message, and the advantages and disadvantages of partnering with a larger media outlet. I’m also taking more cracks at that editorial calendar-as-business plan.

Thanks for hanging in there with me.

Photo by Flicker user Bill Gracey.

Mar 22, 2010

When content becomes free advertising

While pulling together an editorial calendar for my next hyperlocal venture (read: watching the NCAA basketball tournament) last week, I received a tweet from a DC-area marketing company. They were holding an event in my old beat, and I assume the tweet was meant for me to retweet or somehow mention on my now-defunct hyperlocal site in Maryland.

I ignored the tweet. But it reminded me of a big challenge I faced with my former publication: When does announcing an event for the readers’ benefit become free advertising for the event’s organizer, and at what point does one cut off that event organizer and demand payment?

One can make the argument that any mention of such an event constitutes free advertising, and I resigned myself to doling it out in my publication’s popular event calendar. The fact was, there wasn’t much fun to be had in my beat, and I felt obligated to let readers know of any action in the hood.

Generally, I was happy to mention a charity fundraiser or an event that charged no admission and still provided free nosh. But there were many instances when a commercial venture (usually a restaurant) would ask to list a special performance or tasting menu at their venue. I omitted such events from my publication’s calendar and replied to the solicitor with “Care to buy an ad?” And then I wouldn’t hear from that event sponsor again until they had something else they wanted me to plug for free.

There was also one event organizer (owner of the neighborhood’s only bar) who ignored my sales pitches and plugged her bar’s events under the website’s comments section. At first I just deleted her unpaid advertisements and replaced them with a note to readers that “This comment has been deleted.” But after a while I began leaving notes that said, “Please pay for advertising.” We played this game for three years, and the bar owner never bought an ad.

(In fairness, there was no animosity between us. The bar owner and I knew it was just business, and she was always hospitable enough to invite me to closed-door events. Of course, subsequent coverage of those events only meant more free advertising for her business.)

Where does one draw the line? More importantly, how does one convince event organizers (and other potential sponsors) that paying a hyperlocal publisher for ad space is worth the money and effort?

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Chris Blakeley.

Feb 18, 2010

When Big Box meets hyperlocal news

After years of trying to conquer the earth, big media companies are starting to look at the “untapped” hyperlocal market to save their empires. Just yesterday, Business Insider reported that AOL will expand its existing Patch hyperlocal network from the previously planned 30 to “hundreds” in 2010.

AOL isn’t the first big box to move into mom-and-pop territory. The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times run hyperlocal news sites, and national news startup Politico is branching beyond Capitol Hill into Washington’s other hoods. Good for them, and good for the neighborhoods they’ll serve.

(Full disclosure: I spoke with Patch’s editorial director last month about the network’s expansion into my area. He couldn’t give me a job for reasons unrelated to business, but he did offer to take me around the company’s New York offices. Gee, thanks.)

But is big media’s venture into the neighborhood good for existing hyperlocal news sites? I’m leaning towards yes. Here’s why.

First, it creates paid job opportunities for hyperlocalists. In the case of Patch, the editors in charge of individual sites will receive a salary — don’t know how much, but a work-from-home staff job beats entrepreneurial burnout any day of the week. I only hope these editors and other content contributors receive a fair wage for their work.

Second, it has the potential to establish a profitable hyperlocal business model that others (read: me) can rip off. AOL has an army of MBAs crunching numbers to make this work. Let them sort it out and prove to sponsors that online hyperlocal news has value. I’m not too proud to surf in their wake.

Third, competition is good for business. Sure, big boxes like AOL have the sales staff to generate revenue and support editorial operations. But sponsors are always looking for an alternative, one that makes the same personal connections that fuel mom-and-pop businesses. And it doesn’t hurt to offer lower (but not too low) advertising rates and social networking opportunities.

If big media calls with a buyout check or job offer in hand, take it. And if they don’t, bury them.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user six steps.

Feb 1, 2010

Stay classy, journalism!

In a terrific blog post, UC-Berkeley J-School adjunct Alan D Mutter equated dirt-cheap “filler” journalism — the fluffy kind performed for “exposure” or some pittance of a fee — with empty calories. That kind of content fills pages but offers nothing to local, state and national conversations and devalues quality journalism. And it’s why journalists should demand compensation equivalent to their time and labor, he argued.

Can I get an amen?

Mutter’s argument against devaluation is why I fear the marriage of big news outlets with local journalism schools. For example, The New York Times last month announced it was partnering with CUNY J-School to produce content for two of its hyperlocal ventures in Brooklyn. The J-school students will be responsible for reporting as well as recruiting citizen journalists, while their professors will keep editorial tabs on things.

It’s great that budding journalists will earn experience, but will they be paid fairly for their work? I hope so, but I won’t bet the bank on that one. Instead, the Times-CUNY arrangement smells like the exploitation of a relatively skilled labor force willing to work for nothing more than a byline, exposure and a good grade.

Teaching student and citizen journalists that craft and livelihood are incompatible is the wrong lesson. Instead, quality journalism should be rewarded, unless the craft is willing to lose true talent to higher-paying positions in marketing and public relations.

And what does this say about The New York Times, a company that pays its staff reporters $92,500 annually, according to The Newspaper Guild? It tells me they’re willing to offer good hyperlocal news, if only because it’s the publishing world’s revenue flavor of the month. But it also tells me they’re not willing to pay for reporters who will stick around after graduation.

Transient reporters aren’t good for any beat, but especially for the hyperlocal one. It takes time to develop contacts and to learn a neighborhood’s quirks. If a newsroom flushes that away with each graduating class, then any prospect for hardcore investigative reporting is lost.

Let’s teach student and citizen journalists the true value of their work.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Stephen Poff.

Full disclosure: The New York Times isn’t the only publication working with journalism students and citizen journalists, but I do enjoy picking on them.