The above was the question posed for the November debate on Tomorrow’s News, Tomorrow’s Journalists and I gave my answer as ‘I’d invest it in people’.
The post is here, or you can read it below:
First off, I’d rather have a million pounds (British Sterling) than dollars to save journalism with. But exchange rates aside, let’s get down to business.
My strategy would be to invest in people. Invest in getting journalists to do that saving. You can’t do things alone, you need a good team with good people. I’d probably shed some dead wood from the news room, maybe coax a few people to leave early and get some fresh blood in.
I’d keep the subs, but expand their role to include a lot of backroom stuff – like picture uploading, digital media production, video editing. I’d keep the print edition but I’d make it follow online’s lead. Maybe just have one good strong print edition per day, and throw everything into online.
I’d develop strong supplements based around local issues, and not be afraid of trying something new. I’d link these supplements with mini-sites online built around that issue.
I’d invest in training for my staff, I’d employ the Google technique of 10% time for my reporters. i.e. 10% to go off and cover what YOU want and what YOU think needs covering.
I’d put a bit of money towards having trainees in. Not expecting them to pay for everything. There would be a pot of money so that kids can come in and get experience, learn about being a journalist, in a good environment, and not be skint afterwards. You never know, they might even bring a good story in with them – and that’s got to be worth the money.
I’d invest in a CRM (customer relationship management) system for my newspaper, logging user comments, offering them personalised news updates, and beginning to build an idea of who my readers really are. So I know that Joe Bloggs in the North of the city responds well to this type of news. Then I have something to sell, I’ve got proof of effectiveness, readership and grabbing people’s attention.
So to sum up, good journalists, probably better paid, more of them, getting some 10% time, with a good online setup.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Good stuff Ed,
The most important thing in any business is to invest in people and many business’s take their eye off the ball when it comes to HR.
Keep the subs?-That seems to go in the face of what many publications are doing as they drive to lower costs reducing what they see as no essential staff.I think a sub is a sub and to justify their position by adding responsibility is not the way to go.
Def keep the print edition and lead with the online but I wouild hold back good content such as features and analysis for the print edition,it gives it some additional value added which you would lose if it is all online
November 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
HR/training/development etc seems to be sorely lacking in a lot of media organisations – a shame really as you meet too many unhappy reporters sometimes!
I’d keep the subs as potentially cutting back the number of editions they’d have less to do or wouldn’t need as many of them – and could be re-trained for more web based production methods.
Agreed about keeping back ‘premiere’ content and then using it in the print edition, and then releasing it online maybe a day or two later for all those not fortunate enough to catch the print edition.
Be interested to know what else you’d do Nigel?
November 6th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
HR is sorely lacked throughout Britain Ed and not just in media.
But anyway, I can’t really pick many faults with your ideals. People forget the value of subs. In local newspapers, you can tell which ones are run with a good subs team and which ones are produced by a skeleton crew in terms of standards, style and the amount of errors.
The one thing that bugs me and I will use the Coventry Evening Telegraph as an example. Do they really need to print everything in colour? Ok it looks nice, but thats someones job gone or the chance to employ someone that can produce quality reports. It seems that the decision is to make it look pretty and the content is the afterthought.
Multi-tasking and re-training subs/reporters? I am sceptical on this one. People are unhappy because the amount of stress they get put on them. Handing out more jobs to someone can lead to a number of issues. Firstly they have less time to do their main job. This could cause a sub-standard of work because they are worried about sticking captions on videos using Adobe Premier, when they could be checking that the story for page one doesn’t have a massive spelling faux pa on it, such as ‘Grave decimated’ or the such.
I just think that standards will get worse. You need an online team as part of the news room. Let them deal with the web. Let reporters report and let subs sub.
Maybe I have been spoilt but I work in a calm newsroom. No-one gets shouty, stressed or angry. We have a strong team in which people know what their role is and what they have to do. The longer the job description, the worse the standards.
It is a shame because publications don’t see it like that.