I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I enjoy speaking with fellow hyperlocalists about the challenges we face. It’s my reason for getting up in the morning. That and emptying my bladder. Both are equally stimulating, the former on an intellectual level, the latter on a physical level.
So it was with brainy interest that I spoke recently with Terry (whose real name I’ve obfuscated for privacy’s sake). Terry’s fighting the good fight, running a nonprofit investigative-news site in her state capital. But grants are tough to score and corporate donations have the potential to taint her organization’s objectivity, she told me. On top of that, the nature of investigative news calls for long-form and serial writing, not exactly page-view generators.
Terry has considered hosting meet-and-greet events to generate revenue, charging cover fees (or “suggested donations” in nonprofit parlance) for participants to nosh with influential people. Unfortunately, the costs to organize, advertise and cater such events take a serious bite of whatever slim profit is possible, she worried.
My suggestion: Turn these events into a double-whammy volume business.
First, the volume part. Instead of holding cozy meet-and-greets in restaurants and charging higher fees to cover food costs, it might benefit Terry’s organization to host panel discussions in large spaces. A college or private company might be willing to donate use of a lecture hall or conference room, and a local caterer can donate light refreshments (though food always makes post-event cleanup a pain). On top of that, politicos and corporate spokespeople are usually willing to spout their agendas for free when given the opportunity to serve as panelists.
Such a setup allows Terry to suggest small, palatable donations at the door from a larger audience. It also reduces her overhead: So far in this scenario, Terry’s organization has spent zero dollars on space, food and speakers, and has gained a per-capita cover charge. Sweet, huh?
Here’s the double whammy. Terry can record such panel events for later broadcast on her organization’s website, for download as a free podcast, or as audio or video content for paid syndication. Delaying a broadcast gives value to attending panel discussions in real time, but it also allows those not in attendance to benefit from the information presented.
Most of all, delayed broadcasts can drive page views (read: advertising dollars) to a site, especially if a discussion topic or panelist sparks heightened interest between the live event and the recorded show. That kind of action also increases a program’s syndication value.
One event, two sources of revenue. BAM! BAM! A double whammy.
For-profit news organizations can duplicate this, though it might be harder to find donated space and food. Still, I predict a private college would be glad to host an event in exchange for sponsor status and the appearance of an esteemed professor on the panel.
I hope Terry and her organization can reap some revenue from producing these or similar events, as they would benefit the host and audience members alike. For more information on keeping investigative journalism afloat, check out American University’s iLab. Keep running the good race, Terry!
Photo courtesy of Flickr user Stacie Joy for CTTC.
Share and share alike
As I’ve said previously, I enjoy speaking with fellow hyperlocalists and learning of their own adventures in entrepreneurial journalism. Part of that enjoyment stems from the fact that I work from home with little to no human interaction during the day. And then there’s my genuine interest in what’s going on in other people’s lives.
Recently I spoke with one hyperlocalist whom I’ll call Loretta for privacy’s sake. Loretta operates a popular hyperlocal website and was invited to join a regional network that shares advertising revenue with its members while collecting a cut for itself. Currently, the network doesn’t have an umbrella site for aggregating its members’ content or directing readers to its members’ respective websites.
There’s only one thing about this arrangement that makes me leery. Revenue sharing assumes revenue, and when talking about advertising, that usually means page views. This network is so brand-spanking new that it doesn’t yet have an audience of its own and is relying on Loretta’s site and others to drive traffic. In other words, it can’t deliver page views to Loretta’s site. Instead, Loretta’s site will deliver page views to the network, which will then take its cut of the ad revenue.
The way I see it, if Loretta and other hyperlocalists are doing all the work to drive traffic, then they should reap most of the revenue. The network still deserves a cut for using its name and relative size to leverage ad sales, but the fact is, those ad sales won’t happen without the hyperlocalists’ hard-earned page views.
I don’t know the numbers of Loretta’s revenue-sharing arrangement, but I hope she gets her fair share of the deal. Best of luck, Loretta!
Photo courtesy of Flickr user enggul.