You can read Katharine Weymouth's rambling, overly-optimistic, buzzword-packed memo regarding the future of the Washington Post here. It's really quite dreadful, and did nothing to make me believe that the Washington Post, one of the greatest institutions this city has ever produced, will be around next year, much less, the next decade or century.
Apparently, the crux of her plan to save the paper in the face of declining revenue for the entire newspaper industry is to do the exact same thing they've been doing, and pretending it's something new. Here are the so-called "three pillars" of her strategy:
Ah. Well, that's...great. I feel so much better, now. Thanks, Katharine!
Let's break this down.
Being about Washington, for Washingtonians, and those affected by it
How on earth could the Post be any less about Washington? It's called The Washington Post. It has an ample Metro section. It covers local music, food, events, etc. They have daily chats on Washington Post.com about stuff related to Washington. Short of pretending that nothing outside of D.C. exists, I don't know much more Washington-centric the paper could be.
Providing utility, engagement, and convenience for our local readers
Buzzword, buzzword, and I don't know what she means about "convenience." Will she send Michael Wilbon over to my place to read the paper to me as I eat breakfast? Because that would actually be pretty cool.
Extending our brand with new products and new platforms
Ugh. "Brand." The mother of all worthless buzz words. And I don't know what sort of new Washington Post products she thinks people would buy. Bob Woodward plush dolls? John Kelly fedoras? A Dan Steinberg line of cheeses?
Look, it's simple. You want to make money? STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR CONTENT FOR FREE.
Back in the 90s, when the Internet first started becoming popular, music industry executives immediately recognized it as the threat to their profits it was, and tried to get the whole thing killed. Newspapers, on the other hand, happily rushed to put all their content up on their websites without charging for it, with it apparently never occurring to them that people would start canceling their subscriptions en masse. Nor did it occur to them that something like Craigslist would come along and steal all their classified ad sales.
I guess they figured they would make up that money via online advertising, but online advertising is, and always has been, a joke. I can go to a dozen websites (real websites, not run by Livejournal or Geocities or whatever), and the most prominent ads on them are for teeth whitening and weight loss pills. Even when the ads are for real companies and products, they still seem come off as cheap. Over the past 15 years, I've spent untold hours on the Internet at home and at work, and you know how many ads I've actually clicked on? Probably fewer than ten.
Once the Post realized online ads weren't working, it tried making subscriptions more appealing, with stuff like discounts, the Post Points program, and periodic invitations to hobnob with Post staffers. It doesn't seem to be working. (Maybe they could try offering an incentive where each new subscriber gets to take a swing at Charles Krauthammer? That alone would probably be good for a thousand new sign-ups.)
A few years ago, the New York Times tried charging for specific content on its website, and was widely mocked for doing so. After a couple of years, they reversed course and people were once again able to read Maureen Dowd for free. (Yay?) But the Times's problem isn't that they tried charging in general, it's how they went about it. First, they charged for only a small portion of their site. Second, at $50 a year, the price was ridiculous.
So what should the Post learn from this? First, they should charge for almost everything on the site. Keep breaking news and stuff on the front page for free, but for everything else (columns, chats, local news, etc.), charge to read it. Second, it should be reasonable. $20 a year, max.
The Post will say it won't work. They'll say that people are used to getting information for free, and won't go along with this. Bullshit. Yes, people will bitch and moan at first ("You mean I have to pay $20 a year for a superior version of what I was paying over $100 a year for a decade ago? Outrageous!"), but they'll eventually get used to the new paradigm. Especially if every other major newspaper also starts charging. Maybe they could even work out some sort of system where $20 gets you access to the Post, but $25 also gets you access to the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc.
Is it an ideal solution? No, of course not. But at this point, with newspapers across the country on the brink of going out of business, I don't see how there's any other alternative other than hoping Congress will be in the mood for yet another bailout.
The bottom line is, as lame as this might sound, I love the Washington Post. I love it. I read it every morning as a kid before school, and when I went through a brief phase of wanting to be a journalist, I dreamed of working there one day. A few months ago, I actually became a subscriber, not because I especially needed more paper cluttering up my apartment or Post Points or the chance to meet Marc Fisher, but just so I could feel as though I was doing my part to help the company out, because the idea of living in a world without the Washington Post depresses the hell out of me.
So Ms. Weymouth, rather than waste time with talk of "branding" and "engagement," concentrate on producing the same quality product you have been for years. Just start asking people to pay for it.
Apparently, the crux of her plan to save the paper in the face of declining revenue for the entire newspaper industry is to do the exact same thing they've been doing, and pretending it's something new. Here are the so-called "three pillars" of her strategy:
Being about Washington, for Washingtonians, and those affected by it
Providing utility, engagement, and convenience for our local readers
Extending our brand with new products and new platforms
Ah. Well, that's...great. I feel so much better, now. Thanks, Katharine!
Let's break this down.
Being about Washington, for Washingtonians, and those affected by it
How on earth could the Post be any less about Washington? It's called The Washington Post. It has an ample Metro section. It covers local music, food, events, etc. They have daily chats on Washington Post.com about stuff related to Washington. Short of pretending that nothing outside of D.C. exists, I don't know much more Washington-centric the paper could be.
Providing utility, engagement, and convenience for our local readers
Buzzword, buzzword, and I don't know what she means about "convenience." Will she send Michael Wilbon over to my place to read the paper to me as I eat breakfast? Because that would actually be pretty cool.
Extending our brand with new products and new platforms
Ugh. "Brand." The mother of all worthless buzz words. And I don't know what sort of new Washington Post products she thinks people would buy. Bob Woodward plush dolls? John Kelly fedoras? A Dan Steinberg line of cheeses?
Look, it's simple. You want to make money? STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR CONTENT FOR FREE.
Back in the 90s, when the Internet first started becoming popular, music industry executives immediately recognized it as the threat to their profits it was, and tried to get the whole thing killed. Newspapers, on the other hand, happily rushed to put all their content up on their websites without charging for it, with it apparently never occurring to them that people would start canceling their subscriptions en masse. Nor did it occur to them that something like Craigslist would come along and steal all their classified ad sales.
I guess they figured they would make up that money via online advertising, but online advertising is, and always has been, a joke. I can go to a dozen websites (real websites, not run by Livejournal or Geocities or whatever), and the most prominent ads on them are for teeth whitening and weight loss pills. Even when the ads are for real companies and products, they still seem come off as cheap. Over the past 15 years, I've spent untold hours on the Internet at home and at work, and you know how many ads I've actually clicked on? Probably fewer than ten.
Once the Post realized online ads weren't working, it tried making subscriptions more appealing, with stuff like discounts, the Post Points program, and periodic invitations to hobnob with Post staffers. It doesn't seem to be working. (Maybe they could try offering an incentive where each new subscriber gets to take a swing at Charles Krauthammer? That alone would probably be good for a thousand new sign-ups.)
A few years ago, the New York Times tried charging for specific content on its website, and was widely mocked for doing so. After a couple of years, they reversed course and people were once again able to read Maureen Dowd for free. (Yay?) But the Times's problem isn't that they tried charging in general, it's how they went about it. First, they charged for only a small portion of their site. Second, at $50 a year, the price was ridiculous.
So what should the Post learn from this? First, they should charge for almost everything on the site. Keep breaking news and stuff on the front page for free, but for everything else (columns, chats, local news, etc.), charge to read it. Second, it should be reasonable. $20 a year, max.
The Post will say it won't work. They'll say that people are used to getting information for free, and won't go along with this. Bullshit. Yes, people will bitch and moan at first ("You mean I have to pay $20 a year for a superior version of what I was paying over $100 a year for a decade ago? Outrageous!"), but they'll eventually get used to the new paradigm. Especially if every other major newspaper also starts charging. Maybe they could even work out some sort of system where $20 gets you access to the Post, but $25 also gets you access to the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc.
Is it an ideal solution? No, of course not. But at this point, with newspapers across the country on the brink of going out of business, I don't see how there's any other alternative other than hoping Congress will be in the mood for yet another bailout.
The bottom line is, as lame as this might sound, I love the Washington Post. I love it. I read it every morning as a kid before school, and when I went through a brief phase of wanting to be a journalist, I dreamed of working there one day. A few months ago, I actually became a subscriber, not because I especially needed more paper cluttering up my apartment or Post Points or the chance to meet Marc Fisher, but just so I could feel as though I was doing my part to help the company out, because the idea of living in a world without the Washington Post depresses the hell out of me.
So Ms. Weymouth, rather than waste time with talk of "branding" and "engagement," concentrate on producing the same quality product you have been for years. Just start asking people to pay for it.
3 comments:
New WaPo Business Plan:
Phase 1: Collect buzzwords.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Pure, unadulterated genius. I don't see what could possibly go wrong.
Post Points. Feh. You get 5 points for anything you buy, no matter how much you spend, and it takes 50 gazillion points for you to get a disposable razor or something. Useless. And yet, I still whip out the little card and get it scanned every time I buy something somewhere that honors it.
Speaking as foreigner, I think it's obvious why American newspapers are failing: their poorly designed, and more importantly, boring.
As a (former) reader of Canadian newspapers, I was shocked to realize that American newspapers were actually behind their Canadian counterparts when it came to design. Articles are frequently cut of mid-word on the front page - this hasn't been a problem for Canadian newspapers since the late nineties.
More importantly, American newspapers are boring. I'd pick up copies of The National Post during it's heyday, and it was like a little party everyday. You'd find an article written by a talented humorist like P.J. O'Rourke, and a lot of fresh new talent - not just writing in the newspaper itself, but also in the graphic design department. Krauthammer is an excellent example of the kind of tenured bore that American newspapers like to keep on their editorial pages when they should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.
Even the Canadian "establishment paper, The Globe and Mail, takes itself a lot less seriously, invests more in talent, and has more visual flair than the New York Times. The reasons why American newspapers face declining readerships is pretty obvious - if you line them up next to a Canadian or, I'd imagine, an English or Australian newspaper.
Post a Comment