For The Media

Updates on news innovation research, funding and projects

2011-11-28T17:32:00.018+02:00

It’s been a hectic few months. And, it seems, there’s more to come in 2012.

Today, it was announced that I’ve been selected from amongst more than 300 entries as one of three winners of the inaugural International Press Institute’s News Innovation Contest, funded from a grant by Google. (More about the Media And Digital Enterprise or MADE project here. Also, please add your contact details here, if you want to be kept in the loop or work with me on this one. Follow the Twitter conversation at #MADEproject ).

I've also recently learned that the research paper, “The 4Cs of Mobile News”, which my research partner Oscar Westlund and I presented at the (always excellent) Future of Journalism conference in Cardiff in September, has been selected for a special issue of the prestigious Journalism Practice journal due out in 2012.

Earlier this month, Martha Stone and I also wrapped up the data collection for World Newsmedia Innovation Study (formerly the World News Future & Change Study) and plan to issue our third annual report early in the new year.

Also coming soon (I hope) is the final report of the #journopay study into how UK journalists are rewarded, which was launched with the help of Sarah Bould and the team at Hold the Front Page . Roy Greenslade previewed the interim results in the Guardian.

Haven't finalised my conference schedule for next year, but looking forward to speaking more about how UK regional news publishers are mobilising (or not) at News: Rewired in London on February 3rd. Also hope to be able to share more details about the #MADEproject by that stage, too.

Then there's also my continuing work with the inspiring editors on the Journalism Leaders Programme, helping Nick Turner out with the Digital Editors Network (diary note: next meetup on 23 Feb), a new Fundamentals of Business for Media Entrepreneurs module for MA magazine and publishing students at UCLAN, planning for the journalism division's 50th anniversary (yes, we're not only one of the best journalism programmes in the UK, we're also the oldest), two book chapters and the final stretch of my doctoral thesis at City University with Prof Howard Tumber. No doubt, 2012 is going to be a busy one.

Updates along the way on Twitter @francoisnel and academia.edu.

And, of course, always keen to meet up with kindred spirits f2f. So be in touch if you think our paths might cross in (or near) one of the following cities in 2012 - Manchester, Preston, London, Winchester, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Istanbul.

#ukjournopay New study: How are journalists being rewarded?

2011-07-15T13:54:00.011+01:00

There's been a lot of talk about the financial health of the journalism industry (Summary: diagnosis - poor; prognosis -mixed). And there's been quite a bit of discussion (and some research ) about the experiences of journalists who have left or been forced out of their jobs.

But what about those staying behind? Just how are UK journalists, who face increasing demands, being rewarded?

After Jim Oldfied, the striking editor of the South Yorkshire Times, revealed in an NUJ meeting reported on by Jon Slattery & HTFP, that his annual pay after 37 years in journalism is £25,500, I figured it's time to take a closer look.

To that end, I'm conducting an online survey of the pay of UK journalists. If you're a fulltime, part-time, contract or freelance journalist working for a UK newspaper, magazine, broadcaster or online news site, please take 10 minutes to complete this survey.

While all answers will remain anonymous, I will be happy to send you a copy of the report if you add contact details, which will be held separately and never passed on.

Of course, if you have any questions or suggestions for this study, please don't hesitate to be in touch. And any efforts to spread the word about the #ukjournopay research would be very much appreciated.

Related: In case you're interested, my 2010 report, Laidoff: What do UK journalists do next?, is available here.

Top 3 findings from the World News Future & Change Study 2010

2010-12-15T11:52:00.008+02:00

The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers this month published our annual survey of senior news executives - and the findings show there's some reason to be festive this Season.

The study, which I conduct in collaboration with Martha Stone of the Shaping the Future of the Newspaper project and Erik Wilberg of the Norwegian Management School, is the largest of its kind and in 2010 had responses from nearly 500 newspaper owners, publishers, editors and senior commercial managers from 78 countries on all five continents.

Not surprisingly, the 128-page report is packed with great information and selecting my top 3 findings wasn't straightforward. But here's what I think and why I think there's some reason for cheer as we wrap up the first decade of this Millennium and gear up for 2011:

The impact of the global economy recession is easing. No, we're not out of the woods yet. Far from it. But a third fewer publishers (18.5 % in 2010 vs 28% in 2009) reported severe revenue declines – that is more 20 per cent. Declining print advertising revenue was the biggest driver of overall revenue decline, with more than 80% of the respondents saying they lost between 1% and more than 20% of their print ad revenue, with the most pronounced declines happening in Northern Europe and North America regions. Meanwhile online advertising revenue and content revenue did not take the same hit as print revenues, with half of the respondents reporting growth, many reporting no change, and a handful, less than one-quarter, reporting a decline in the last fiscal year.
Advertising-supported print products are no longer enough. The vast the vast majority of the world's news publishers recognise their traditional revenue sources of print advertising and newspaper subscriptions will no longer provide the financial returns of years past and, in response, the publishers are making it a top priority to diversify their revenue streams and to development new products and new channels.

Publishers are bullish about mobile.
Innovation - and mobile - are keys to future success. One question summed up the publishers’ collective desire for the future of their business, and that is, new business growth. Respondents in both 2009 and 2010 spoke loudly and clearly: the way forward is through investment in new product development for new revenues. We consider this to be one of the most important findings of the study. . Other clear investments for newspaper companies were marketing and branding for newspapers, increased audience research and investment in customer relationship management. In 2009, investment in new product development was followed by marketing and branding for the newspaper, increased audience research, investment in customer relationship management and investment in editorial technologies. This year, investment in new product development was followed by marketing and branding for the newspaper, and then "mobile platforms." When asked, “Please consider which of the following platforms could be opportunities for your organisation over the next three years,” the top choices were mobile phones (58%), followed by Websites (54%) and e-readers, such as Kindle and iPad (53%.). Clearly the emerging importance of mobile is an important take-away from this year’s study and, of course, we’ll be investigating this in some greater depth in 2011.

A free summary of the study is available for download on the WAN-IFRA site. And, of course, I'd be happy to answer any questions [Twitter @francoisnel / FPNel @ uclan . ac . uk ] .

We’re already working on the 2011 survey and planning to expand the study to 10 languages by including Arabic, along with (in alphabetical order) Chinese, English, French, German, Greek, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

For academic citations of the report, please use: STONE, Martha, NEL, François and WILBERG, Erik. (2010) World News Future and Change Study 2010. Paris, France: World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA).

Still no industry consensus: To integrate your print and online newsrooms, or not to....

2010-10-26T19:33:00.014+02:00

That has been one of the hottest questions in news organisation for more than a decade. And, despite much, much discussion - and many examples from the UK and elsewhere - there's still no industry consensus.

Just this week, Robert Andrews of PaidContentUK reported that Trinity Mirror chief Sly Bailey, whose Regionals division's integration efforts have been held up as best practice examples internationally, said operations at the national Daily Mirror, for one, would remain separate:

Bailey said Trinity Mirror’s recent national digital executive-level digital reshuffle was about creating a digital division “separate” from print, allowing each to focus on their respective areas.
“It was just too difficult to ask the editor of the Daily Mirror, who has six newspapers to get out every week, (to run the website as well),” Bailey said.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, there are also divergent operational strategies aimed at achieving a similar result: maximising online opportunities [read: revenue].

Five years after America's second largest paper, USA Today, announced that a merger print and online operations "will improve our report to readers both in print and online", the company has had a "radical" rethink.

By contrast, The Cutline reports that a recent reorganisation at the New York Times, that country's largest paper, is aimed at bringing online and print operations even closer together.

What ever else this means (and I look forward to discussing this further), it suggests how you answer the integration questions depends in no small part on how you answer the key question that every business should answer:

What's the most efficient way to sustainably deliver customer value?

Why Rupert Murdoch's 'paywall' strategy might indeed be adding up

2010-09-02T13:19:00.014+01:00

[Update: Many thanks for all the feedback on the calculations, which have now been revised]

Next week, I’m slated to speak at WAN-IFRA’s 9th International Newsroom Summit in London about my research into how publishers can boost their online revenues, so after reading today’s piece in The Independent by Ian Burrell, I thought I’d do some back-of-the envelope calculations to see if Rupert Murdoch’s paywall strategy might indeed be adding up.

Warning: I’m not privy to the online traffic figures of The Times or The Sunday Times, which are no longer ABCe registered, nor do I know their ARPU or Average Revenue Per User rates, so this is just conjecture using figures I have discussed before.

Times' 20,406,420 monthly unique users in May 2009, according to ABCe figures quoted in Press Gazette. Say they were making £0.20p £0.10p per user per month, mostly from advertising.

That would be 20,406,420 X £0.10p = £2,040,642 per month.

So, say they lost 90 per cent of their users and, say, 50 per cent of their advertisers got cold feet, too:

20,040,642 X 0.10 = 2,040,642 users x (£0.10/ 2) £0.05 = £102,032.10 per month, mostly from advertising.

And say half those users cross the TimesPlus ‘paywall’ by through the £1 daily access fee and the other half opt for the £2 weekly access.

Income from daily access users: 1,020,321 X £1 x 30 days per month = £33,060, 963£1,020,32 per month.

Income from weekly access users: 1,020,321 X £2 X 4 weeks per month= £8,165, 136£2,040,642 per month

Total income would be £102,032.10 + £1,020,321.00 + £2,040,642.00 would be : £3,162,995.10, which is still be up 55% on what the income may have been before the paywall.

And say I’m only half right?

Well, then The Times' online income would be down about a quarter.

So, if you’re looking at Rupert Murdoch’s paywall model from a financial perspective, the strategy looks like it may just be adding up. But, of course, one would have to be privy to the actual numbers to really know for sure.

[Addendum: Robert Andrews alerted me to the uncanny similarity between my calculations and those he did earlier for PaidContentUK ]

How does your Annual Revenue Per User (ARPU) compare with the Guardian and Media Norge?

2010-08-20T08:14:00.011+01:00

Recently Schibsted‘s Norwegian publisher Media Norge outlined to investors the key challenge they face in building their digital business: “Overall traffic levels may be reaching saturation and online ad prices are stagnating.”

As PaidContent reported, the company also disclosed its average revenue per user (ARPU) rate, giving us a rare look under the bonnet of one of the world’s most successful digital publisher. The company , acknowledged that average income per monthly unique visitor of two Norwegian krona (that’s $0.32 or £0.21) is now less than it was back in 2006.

That’s still more than double the Guardian Media Group’s 2007 rate of 10p (that’s $0.16 or 0.97 Norwegian krona), if my back-of-the-envelope calculations based on figures in their 2008 Annual Report are correct.

To double check, take a look at these slides which I used for a presentation for the Digital Editors' Network earlier this year.

Compare you digital revenues with The Guardian's?

View more presentations from Francois Nel.

How much is each of your users worth? And how do those figures compare?

Building a Tip Sheet for Laid Off Journalists (and others)

2010-08-18T11:25:00.007+01:00

As part of the report on the #laidoff study, we’re compiling a list of online resources where you can find guides and advice about how to get back into the work force, re-tool your career and shift directions, or keep your current journalism jobs.

If you have suggestions for other sites or links we should include, please add those below or send them to me a FPNel @ uclan.ac.uk . Thanks.

Job Search Engines, Articles & Guides:

Journalism.co.uk – tips on CV writing, preparing for an interview and more – as well as daily updates on jobs across the broader communications sector
HoldtheFrontPage – jobs listings in the local and regional press.
Jobs4journalists.co.uk – journalism jobs across the sector, across the UK
Guardian Media Jobs - national and even international jobs
How-Do – creative industry jobs in the Northwest
UCLAN’s Andy Dickinson’s guide to digital job hunting.

What support is on offer for graduates of the University of Central Lancashire, home to the UK's oldest journalism programme?

Careers advice and guidance by email, telephone or face-to-face
Search for job opportunities and internships at 'myfutures'
Careers resources to download
Help with gaining relevant work-experience
Events & workshops to help develop your skills
Business start-up, freelance and self-employment advice , including office space

Training Sessions:

Vision + Media - provide a range of activities to support media professionals in the Northwest.
News University - training and courses for journalists, many of them free (project by the Poynter Institute)

How to Keep Your Job if You Still Have One:

Keeping your Job in Journalism (from the Knight Digital Media Center)
Tips on Keeping Your Print Journalism Job – some sober advice from a politically-incorrect hack.

Updated: How many journalists are there in the UK? This is why I guestimate around 40,000 (that's more than a third less than the number often quoted)

2010-08-12T12:45:00.020+01:00

[Update 14/08/2010: My guestimate has been revised to "around 40,000" following input from John Thompson at Journalism.co.uk, Carolyn Werry at Meltwater Press and Sabina Rosander of Cision Research.]

I'm spending some of my summer writing up my #laidoff study- conducted in collaboration with Journalism.co.uk - which explores what UK journalists do next.

It got me wondering: Just how many journalists are there in the mainstream media?

A straightforward question, yes. But, unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer. I've discovered that the most widely quoted figures on the size of the industry comes from the Journalists at Work study published in 2002 by the Journalism Training Forum, which was set up in 2001 to advise the Publishing National Training Organisation and Skillset.

Based on a self-completion survey completed by 1,238 journalists “and other data”, Spilsbury (2002), estimates that there are approximately 70,000 journalists in the UK. Of these, roughly 60,000 journalists work in publishing and 10,000 in broadcasting.

The study’s author is upfront about the difficulty of coming to that conclusion: “Estimating the number of journalists in the UK using national data sources is problematic, as these are very limited and subject to a wide margin of error” (Spillsbury 2002: 17). The main data source of occupational employment is the Labour Force Survey 2001 (which was last conducted in 2004). Even then, that study grouped together people who stated they worked as “authors, writers and journalists,” which is not the most useful for the purposes of industry-specific studies like these.

While Spilsbury attempts to be conservative in his estimates, saying “it would be better to work with a ‘safe’ estimate that may under-estimate the total number rather than make exaggerated claims that cannot later be substantiated,” there is some evidence that suggest the figures might still be exceedingly generous.

Consider, for example, this examination of the editorial employment figures in the local and regional newspapers: The Journalists at Work (JAW) study says that the Local and Regional Press comprise 30% of the estimated 60,000 print journalists, which would be around 18,000 journalists. However, the following year, the body representing that sector, the Newspaper Society (NS), started issuing reports based on an annual survey of their members and put the total number of editorial staff in 2002 at 13,020, which is almost 28% less than the JAW study.

So, even if all the other estimates were accurate, it would still bring the total number of journalists down by 5,000 or almost 10% of the lowest range of the estimated number of print journalists.

It is not only the baseline figures from that study that should be re-examined, but also some of its key conclusions: “Whatever the current number of journalists, it seems clear that the numbers will continue to grow in the future” (Spilsbury, p. 17). Drawing on general employment forecasts that put UK employment growth at 2.5%, the authors conclude that “by 2010, industry forecasts suggest that there will be an additional 20,000 journalists”” and then add “ pointing to significant demand upon the industry’s training, education and recruitment infrastructure” (p.

7).

What a difference a decade makes. With the benefit of hindsight, we can point to the structural changes in the industry that have seen changes in consumer behaviour, consolidation of enterprises and the convergence of job roles. Cyclical changes in the economy and have driven further driven down the number of people employed across the mainstream media.

A review of all the NS employment figures from 2002 to 2007 (the latest available), show a decline of about 30% across all divisions. In general, editorial workers were less affected. Fulltime editorial staff declined by 14% (see Figure), while part-time staff declined by 9.6%. The total editorial workforce in the Local and Regional Press shrunk by 13.75% over the period – which was before the global economic meltdown that started at the end of 2007.

A review of report on job losses published in Journalism.co.uk, Press Gazette and the Guardian Media sections between January 2007 and June 2010, indicate the number of jobs have continued to decline at even greater speed since the start of what is often called the “Great Recession”.

There is some evidence to suggest that the cuts in the regional press have been deeper than in the national press. At the Daily Mail and General Trust, for example, losses at their regional division, Northcliffe Media, over the past few years has typically be more than double those at the national division, Associated Newspapers and are reflected in the redundancy plans. In 2008, DMGT announced 500 regional job cuts , which was then revised to 1,000 in March 2009 and climbed to 1,500 “across the company” in a statement made in May 2009.

A “Redundancy Round-up” in Journalism.co.uk further points to possible differences between the levels of staff cuts in the regional and national newspapers. In reference to 78 job losses at Trinity Mirror Regionals, it is noted that the Press Gazette had reported, “The bulk of the job losses will come in Liverpool, where the 175-strong editorial team will be cut to 132 and the Liverpool Daily Post will scrap its Saturday edition.” The loss of 43 jobs represents a reduction about 25%. Other reports detailed additional cuts at the same offices.

The summary of activities in the national press includes this note: “Fifty editorial staff are to lose their jobs at Telegraph Media Group, management told staff today. ‘It is understood the cuts represent a 13-14 per cent saving to the editorial budget and will be brought into effect by Christmas at the latest,’ reports MediaGuardian."

The reports suggest that no media sector has emerged unscathed, including television. In September 2008, for example, the Media Guardian reported that ITV were cutting 1000 jobs, including 430 newsroom positions, accounting for almost 20% of its total workforce .

And jobs cuts have not only been ordered at advertising-supported media companies. For example, in October 2007 the BBC announced that 2,500 jobs would be axed as part of wide-ranging reforms driven, in part, by budget shortfalls .

A tally of the numbers reported in the survey of three trade sites - Journalism.co.uk, Press Gazette and the Media Guardian - suggests that more than 9,500 journalism jobs were cut between January 2007 and June 2010.

This is in line with the National Union of Journalists’ estimate that in the newspaper sector alone there have been at least 8,800 jobs lost and 54 local offices closed since December 2008. Based on a revised baseline estimate of 40,000-50,000 55,000-60,000 jobs in the mainstream media that would suggest that, as a result of structural and economic changes affecting the sector, the UK’s mainstream journalism corps has shrunk by about a quarter between a quarter and a third since 2001 (or between 40% and 50% down on the 2002 JAW report estimates).

So, back to the original question: How many journalists working if the mainstream media in the UK today? By my guestimation (which has been corroborated by researchers at Cision): 30,000 around 40,000.

How does that sound to you?

- Also: When it's done, the #laidoff study report will be available on the journalism.co.uk site. Feedback would, of course, be much appreciated.

- An appeal invitation: I would welcome discussions with those in the public and private sector bodies who would help fund a much-needed centre for industry intelligence (perhaps along the lines of the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism in the US).

- Next post: How many students enrolled in journalism courses each year?

The Media Magazine: The biggest threat to the African news industry - change-averse company executives

2010-05-21T08:47:00.015+01:00

The Media magazine in South Africa recently asked me to write a piece on challenges to the news industry.

Drawing on the findings of the last World Newspaper Future & Changes Study, I argue that the biggest threats to the local news business are change-adverse company executives:

The global economic recession couldn't have come at a better time for some media executives.

It has provided a convenient scapegoat for those top managers who hanker for the days when profits flowed like ink and who believe it'll be business as usual when the economy recovers. Declining audiences and adspend, they argue, will bounce back as fast as you can say "economic cycle". All this talk about the business opportunities that the advances in new technologies are bringing is malarkey, they say. Just look at what happened to those in the digitally dedicated, but decimated, newspaper industries in America, Britain and elsewhere.

In some ways, I wish they were right. But they're not. And those change-averse company executives are the biggest threat to the local news industry.

The rest of the article from the May 2010 edition of the magazine has been posted here.

Results from the 2010 World Newspaper Future & Change Study, which I conduct in partnership with colleagues at the Shaping the Future of the Newspaper project of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) and the Norwegian School of Management, will be published in the Autumn.

Data & Journalism: perhaps onions are easier to understand?

2010-01-27T12:48:00.008+02:00

When I was asked yesterday to provide comment where "data" fits in the journalism standards that Skillset is in the process of reviewing and developing, my answer was simple: Don’t geek it.

In the so-called Digital Age, one thing that is plentiful - and growing exponentially - data. What is scarce, and therefore potentially valuable, is information. And, even more than that, knowledge. And most rare: wisdom.

I'd been thinking a bit about the link between what is often called the "DIKW Hierarch" or the "Wisdom Pyramid" since the last Digital Editors’ Network meeting when Microsoft UK producer Alistair Bruce described how data was being used to tell stories on sites like MSN Local. He likened it to the layers of an onion.

So, I’ve drafted this "Onion Model" as a way to start describing where data links to journalism. And am thinking that perhaps it might even be useful to the discussions about where (or not) to put up "paywalls".

Alistair and I’ll are thinking more about it and will be including some of those ideas in a chapter in the (much-delayed) 4th edition of Writing for the Media, which Oxford is hoping to publish later this year.

In the meantime, I’ve been bouncing around those ideas with colleagues like Andy Dickinson, who said he’d be blogging about his take on it sometime soon, too. And I’ll probably weave it into the discussion at the #DEN2010 meeting on "Benchmarking Your Website". And, of course, I look forward to seeing just how data literacy, retrieval and repurposing is woven into the National Occupational Standards for journalism.

What's in store for online journalism and media in 2010?

2010-01-04T12:15:00.003+02:00

From Journalism.co.uk

The past year in the online journalism and news media industries has seen more job cuts, paid content debates, moves into the smartphone market and the rise of the 'Twitter mob'.

But what will 2010 bring? Will there be new debates and launches or more of the same?

Yesterday we revisited predictions from industry insiders on what would occupy the industry in 2009, from hyperlocal to a surge in news start-ups. Below are the answers to a question put to journalists and industry commentators working online via Twitter for their predictions for the year ahead...

More on what I mean by reciprocity in the (very short) presentation I gave at last UK Society of Editors conference. Expanding on that idea is amongst my New Year's resolutions.

Investigating online business models. Or, where else is the money? (Online, that is)

2009-11-25T00:15:00.019+02:00

Over the past four years, as my colleagues and I have worked with hundreds of editors and high-potential journalists to build their capacity and confidence to tackle the challenges of Digital, one question kept coming up,‘…but there’s no money online?’

Of course, that’s not entirely true. There’s a great deal of money being made online. Just ask Google. Or eBay. What is true is that the mainstream media aren’t getting very much of it.

So, for the last few years I’ve been looking into the online business models of the largest newspapers in Britain 66 cities and have only recently been in a position to share some of the findings.

* 12 September, I presented a paper based on the 2008 results at the second bi-annual Future of Journalism Conference 2009, held at Cardiff University. An edited version of that article is to be included in a special edition of the journal Journalism Practice.

* 28 October, I summarised the findings at the Autumn meeting of the Digital Editors Network and later that evening continued the discussion when I chaired the 13th Journalism Leaders Forum on the theme, Paywalls: Build them, break them,or look beyond them.

* 16 November, I presented the first comparision between the 2008 and 2009 findings as part of a session on new revenue models at the UK Society of Editors' annual conference held at Stansted. The session audio has been posted and PaidContent:UK reported the presentation here. My slides are below.

vs3: Where Else Is The Money?

View more presentations from Francois Nel.

* 2 December, Martha Stone of the Shaping the Future of Newspaper project and I presented findings from some related research, the World Newspaper Future & Change Study 2009, at the 62 World Newspaper Congress in Hyderabad. The findings clearly show that publishers everywhere are now actively looking for new revenue streams beyond advertising and paid content - and aim to invest in training their staff to do so better, faster.

Right now, I'm swimming in data - including a comparison between the mobile strategies employed by regional newspapers and those of the leading national papers, as well as a look into what journalists do after being laid off (or leaping) - and hope to soon make time to write it up for conferences and industry fora. And, of course, I'll post updates here too.

PS: I welcome comments, suggestions and am always interested in collaboration with others working in the same field. So, please be in touch.

Future & Change Study: SA newspaper executives highlight employee motivation as the industry's greatest challenge

2009-08-25T13:05:00.005+01:00

A survey of senior South African newspaper executives found that employee motivation was the single most significant challenge facing the industry – and that organisations needed to improve competencies across all levels in order to meet future challenges effectively.

Other findings from the exploratory study, which I conducted amongst 12 executives in October and November 2008, include:

Greatest competition to come from other print products. Free newspapers were expected the greatest competitor to traditional newspapers in the next five years, followed by content on mobile phones and online news sites compiled by the large search engines such as Google and Yahoo.

Scope for significant cost reductions. The majority of respondents believed that newspapers did not operate as efficiently as they could and that significant costs reductions could be achieved without reducing quality. All the respondents to that question felt there was some room for cutting costs with the vast majority – 8 of 9 respondents - saying that there was potential to cut costs by more than 6% and a third saying that operational costs could be cut between 20-30% with little impact.

Companies will need to diversify their revenue streams. All respondents to this question agreed that newspapers will need to consider earning revenues from non-traditional sources, with 8 of 9 executives saying newspaper companies will need to look elsewhere for up to a third of their revenues.

Loss of experienced staff and out-dated technology have hurt companies.
When asked to reflect on the changes that had occurred in the last 3-5 years and what newsroom loss has hurt the most, the respondents highlighted two concerns:
Technology - not having the appropriate knowledge to keep up. “Not being up-to-date with the internet”
Qualified staff – losing experienced staff to bigger publications with new staff not being up to scratch. “Loss of quality journalists, level of new trainees is shocking” “Experienced middle management” “Experience”

Work is needed to prepare for the challenges ahead. All respondents felt companies were ready for the challenges ahead: 8 of the 9 respondents felt that companies were no more than 50% prepared. Respondents felt there was a great need for developing middle-management , particularly in the editorial and advertising departments with 8 of 9 respondents saying work in this area was very or extremely important.

What is the single most important change that has to be implemented in your newspaper over the next year? Responses to this question varied greatly, but could be considered to fit into two broad themes: developing staff and systems to implement multimedia news operations, and developing management that can effectively streamline operations for greater efficiency.

Additional highlights from the report are available in this short report.

The study is now being expanded globally in collaboration with Martha Stone of the World Assocation of Newspapers-IFRA and Erik Wilberg of the Norwegian School of Management.

Senior editorial and commercial executives from newspaper companies have been invited to participate and, as a way of thanking them for completing the 20-question survey, the researchers are undertaking to send them the final 2009 World Newspaper Future & Change Study report.

The results of the survey will also be analysed for a Shaping the Future of the Newspaper project report for the WAN-IFRA, to be published in December 2009.

If you'd like to participate, please click HERE to take survey, which should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. [If you are not the correct person to answer the survey, please forward it to the appropriate person in your company.] And, of course, if you have any comments or questions, don’t hesitate to contact me at: FPNel @ uclan . ac . uk

Investing in Journalism Innovation: towards a petition for Government support for training

2009-02-18T17:46:00.028+02:00

Evidence that the local & regional newspaper industry (amongst others) are in crisis isn't hard to find.

Just take a quick glance at the Media Guardian timeline of media job cuts (below). And while, as Ian Burrell pointed out recently in The Independent, not everyone thinks it matters. Others, like me, do.

And in those circles the view that Government has a more active role to play in the way ahead is also gaining support, as recent comments by the culture secretary and the establishment of the new Local Media Alliance) show.

However, while any interventions should necessarily help ensure the industry survives the cyclical economic downturn, that's not enough. The industry needs support for the structural changes essential if it is to thrive in the 'Networked Age'.

Or, to draw on an old adage: Government should not only give the hungry industry some fish and ensure that the legislative environment is conducive for fishing - but it should also help the industry build the knowledge to devise new ways of fishing.

Media job cuts on Dipity.

Training and re-training newsrooms for the (not so) new media media environment is certainly happening (my colleagues and I are engaged in a quite a bit of it ourselves).

But it's not happening enough. And it's not happening fast enough. And, with few exceptions, it's not happening broadly enough - particularly at the higher levels of organisations (as Hugh Stevenson and I have noted before).

With that in mind, I've been circulating an idea amongst some colleagues, which I'm now considering posting as an e-petition to No 10.

But before I do, I'd welcome any feedback or advice on the proposal which would read something like:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to…enable media companies to invest in building the much-needed capacity to innovate- including editorial and commercial management skills - by providing corporate tax relief for training of up to 1% of payroll per annum.
This investment, which would be subject to review after three years, would supplement, not replace, support for digital skills training available through current initiatives such as Skillset ."

What could this mean?

Well, a back-of-envelope calculation based on the premise that payroll comprises around 40% of the budget of a typical newspaper (cf the Independent). And let's work with a modest operation of 100 people that, using Frederic Filloux's rough calculation, means a payroll of around £5million. That would make around £500 available per person to invest in capacity building.

That may not be a great deal - but, I suspect, that it's a great deal more than most training budgets are likely to have right now. And would go a long way to helping the cash-starved news organisations build their capacity to innovate.

How does that sound?

NOTE: It's probably worth pointing out this is my personal blog and that these views are my own and that I'm am not speaking for my employer. Or anyone else.

Gathering the (South African) Media Milestones

2009-02-17T16:52:00.004+02:00

I kicked it off in 1994 with the first edition of Writing for the Media. And continued it with the second edition. But dropped it when I put together the third edition.

But today, after get yet another query about the history of the South African press, I've decided to (re)build the media milestones on Dipity. And to invite others to join the project.

So, if you'd like to contribute, just pop me a note.

Francois N. - All Topics on Dipity.

A response to '‘Four Excuses That Impede Change in Media Academia’

2008-05-25T12:58:00.014+01:00

At the edge of the Namib desert where the Swakob River empties, periodically, into the Atlantic Ocean, settlers in 1892 founded a town which many still today describe as 'more German than Germany'.

It's a place where the pioneers, mostly cut off from the developments das Vaterland sought (seek?) to perpetuate the culture as they remembered it.

The architecture, the bakeries and pubs are all wonderful examples of early 20th century Europe and seem untouched by either the changes on that continent or the cultures of the rest of Africa, which lies beyond the Namib desert.

In much the same way, too many media academics that I encounter on both sides of the Atlantic seek to perpetuate the norms and values of a time that no longer exists. And, yes, as Vin Crosbie points out in his column, ‘Four Excuses That Impede Change in Media Academia’ , it's often done with the best of intentions. And not all the outcomes are lamentable either (if you're ever in Swakopmund, try the fine beer and delicious baked goods). But, whatever else it is, it’s not fit for progress.

To change that will not only take a radical review of the curricula, as Vin suggests, but also a revolution of the culture in the journalistic establishment- newsrooms & the institutions that support them. That needs to start with the banishment of the common belief that no one outside the fraternity says anything worth listening to.

Consider, for example, the open disdain with which many journalism trainers (I hesitate using the word 'academics') regard their colleagues in media studies departments, where they do not simply perpetuate 'best' journalistic practice, but dare to examine the consequences of those actions. Similar attitudes apply to those who condescend to consider the market value of journalistic endeavour.

This particular brand of anti-intellectualism, I firmly believe after more than 20 years of working in and with newsrooms and universities in the US, South Africa and the UK, has resulted in the knowledge cul-de-sac that has contributed to the not-so-slow suicide of large sections of the mainstream industry in the US and elsewhere.

So it would be simplistic to suggest that out-moded academic curricula are the consequences of journalism departments that are cut off from the changes in industry. Instead, it's because, much like Swakopmund, the journalistic establishment has long made a virtue of isolating itself from everyone else. And while it was largely a matter of geography for the early setters of that patch of German South-West Africa, for much of the mainstream media industry its mostly a matter of mindset.

Yet another edition of Writing for the Media in the works [and other cliches]

2007-09-05T14:51:00.001+02:00

First this: My first writing tutor at university, Rosalie de Rosset, tried to instill in me a phobia of clichés, which she would ridicule without mercy. So it's with trepidation that I ask that you - and she - indulge me in this post

No one can be more surprised than I am (cliché 1) that the text I pull together in those months before South African's first democratic election is still considered useful enough to would-be journalists and trainers that the publishers want yet another edition.

A recent letter from folks at Oxford University Press noted that Writing for the Media 3e is being used at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Central University of Technology, University of the Free State, Johannesburg University, Tshwane University of Technology, University of Pretoria, University of South Africa, Vaal University of Technology, Durban Institute of Technology, University of KwaZulu Natal, University of Zululand, University of Venda, North West University, Cape Peninsula University of Technology and the University of Cape Town.

I'm aware that much, perhaps the most, of the book's value is due to the input from colleagues across the industry in South Africa and further afield. I'll again be knocking on doors for input and, if all goes well, the 4th edition will be published in the months before this country's third general election. A gap of about 14 years.

Of course, a great deal has changed, in the country and in our industry. I’ll certainly be looking more closely at how technology has changed our media landscape and specifically how once-clear divisions between “professional” and “popular” communication merge and blend online as traditional differences between message senders and receivers, producers and consumers are replaced by a vast, fluid, ongoing, multi-voiced discourse (Burnett and Marshall, 2003).

The networked digital environment has meant an end to media forms that are discrete or concrete. With it has come the blurring of the boundaries between journalists and their audiences as millions of individuals and organizations have discovered and begun to exercise the ability to interact and express themselves online. Journalists and audiences are is becoming intertwined in complex and little-understood ways. Tricky stuff.

On the other hand [need to get my clichés quotient up], I’m also mindful of Solomon’s wisdom- "there’s nothing new under the sun" - and will aim to highlight those elements which are constant, such as the human need for news and information that can assist with decision-making and social cohesion.

Clearly, putting together the next edition of this text will be no small challenge. And so these final clichés – which are no less true for that - all comments, suggestions or contributions will be most welcome. My copy deadline is February 2008. So, I, er, we had better get to it.

After the 14th World Editors Forum

2007-06-15T12:49:00.000+01:00

Well, it's over. The 14th World Editors Forum and 60th World Association of Newspapers Congress wrapped up in Cape Town with the words, 'See you in Goteborg!'; Sweden's second city and host to the next event.

And perhaps we'll have to wait till then to see the real impact of the four days of presentations (including mine), discussions and deal-making, which organisers say drew 'some 1600' delegates to the Cape Town International Convention Centre.

Some of the key points for me were:

- While most editors now acknowledge the need to take advantage of opportunities that new media channels offer, many are still hoping that they can do that without re-engineering their operations.

- Everyone's grappling with how to make money. Actually, most are trying to figure out how to make as much (or more) money doing what we've always done, just more of it. Of course, bottom line is this: we can't. We either have to change or expand what we do, or change our expectations of the rewards.

- Mainstream media companies used to the push model are grappling with the search-find-share paradigm on the Web, and the particular power of search engines (read: Google).

- Mobile media is mostly seen as channel to push more content, while mobile devices are being used as reporting tools. There's still very little discussion about how mobile technologies can be used to engage in conversation with communities. By that I mean how to connect individuals - not simply how to push content from corporates to audiences or even how corporates can get content from individuals.

- The Declaration of Table Mountain is a reminder for that multimedia doesn't necessary mean a a free press.

On to Gotenborg?

Contenders for the first Dolly's© for the Worst Newspaper Video

2007-04-24T14:13:00.000+01:00

Perhaps I should revive my tongue-in-cheek suggestion for the Dolly Awards . Paul Bradshaw has identified some serious contenders for the Worst Newspaper Video category from amongst the offerings of the UK regional press. In the process, his posting reiterates some points I've been making in discussions with traditional newsrooms who including online video amongst their offerings:

Online video is NOT television. Online is to television what television is to film, what film is to theatre, what theatre is to books... In all cases direct imitation is typically NOT flattering. Online news video is a new genre and it will take some time to establish best practice.
Training (sufficient and on-going) isn't a nice-to-have, it's essential. Sending out poorly trained staff into the online world is not only potentially embarrassing and demoralising for the ridiculed journalist, it is probably bad for business. It's like trying to sell a bad newspaper through novel promotions: all you're doing is getting more people aware of the poor quality of your offering. After the promotion, they're unlikely to be back.
Novelty isn't a substitute for quality. Once the novelty of simply having video online wears off, those who are want to compete will need to distinguish themselves in the (highly competitive) online space by exhibiting exceptional creativity and craft. And that, as in any field of endeavour, takes investment.

In the meantime, Paul offers some nifty suggestions:

Rule #1: if you’re aiming to imitate broadcast television, make sure you’ve watched it since the ’80s.
Rule #2: if you use a cloth for a background, make sure you iron it.
Rule #3: tempted to use those fancy transition effects on your video editing software? Don’t.
Rule #4: if you’re going to do ‘green screen’ make sure the green covers the whole background.
Rule #5: don’t start talking to your mate while the camera is still filming.
Rule #6: speak clearly, slow down.
Rule #7: film at a time or place when people are not coming in and out of a door and mumbling to each other out-of-shot
Rule #8: do more than one take.

Hill Hunt added two more:

9. Try being interesting or at least (unintentionally) funny.
10. If you can’t, at least tell us something new - not a list of the bleeding obvious.

Further suggestions - and nominees for the Dolly's© - now being accepted.

Facing the New(ish) Digital Frontier - Mobile Media

2007-03-20T14:31:00.000+02:00

The buzz that Google is poised to leap into mobile is growing stronger. It's not surprising, really. Google guru Vinton Cerf has been talking up the importance of mobile phones quite a bit recently saying that the future growth of the Internet lies in the hands of mobile phone users, not computers.

Cerf has pointed out that while the Internet population has exploded from 50 million to 1.1 billion since 1997, it still only reaches a sixth of the world's population. “You will get those other 5.5 billion people only when affordability increases and the cost of communication goes down," said Cerf, 63, who joined Google in 2005 as Vice President. By contrast, analysts say mobile phone connections recently topped 2.5 billion and are expected to reach 3 billion by the end of 2007 . A recent study showed that more than half of mobile phones in circulation were enabled to access data services and that 56% of users accessed at least one data services each a month, up dramatically from a year ago. “The mobile phone has become an important factor in the Internet revolution, " said Cerff.

Mainstream media companies aren't entirely asleep at the wheel.

A study of 38 US news sites published last week as part of The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s 2007 State of the American News Media Report showed that about a third (12 sites) of the sites in the sample allowed content delivery customization, such as RSS feeds, podcasts or mobile phone alerts. According to Visiongain, by 2008, 89% of brands in Europe will use SMS & MMS to reach their audience and 1/3 will spend more than 10% of their marketing budgets on the mobile channel.

Since I'm in the business of helping mainstream media companies develop the capacity to meet the challenges that our industry faces, I've been looking around at some innovations in mobile media and have invited Eamonn Carey from upstart Random Thoughts Media to the 6th Journalism Leaders Forum panel on May 15th . Eomann's work for O2 mobile, sponsors of the Irish national rugby team, should ring some alarm bells with mainstream media groups who are still dithering on their commitment to digital innovation - it demonstrates that there are a host of nimble, new media-christened production and distribution companies who are willing and able to help advertisers engage directly with audiences.

- If you've know of good, bad or brilliant examples of the use of mobile phones by mainstream media, I'd really appreciate the links.
- I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from the link up between media monoliths Media24/Naspers and minos Mxit.co.za . Any ideas?
- For a primer on the subject see 'Mobile and Newspapers - A Quick Lessons' . Be sure to read the comments at the end, too.

Digg this: appetite for online news & information grows, social media site is the rising star

2007-02-28T15:45:00.000+02:00

Mainstream media publishers diving into digital should be encouraged by the lastest report from Hitwise : News andMedia websites experienced 28% year-on-year growth in market share of UK Internet visits in January. But there's also a warning: the biggest winner wasn't a traditional news provider, but social news site Digg.com .

Digg.com was the fastest growing News andMedia website year-on-year in January among the top 100 sites based on visits. Digg.com’s market share of UK internet visits grew more than 5-old comparing January 2006 and January2007. Digg.com was the #1 IT Media website in January 2007 and the #32 ranked News and Mediawebsite. The website’s ranking climbed from #85 in August and from #182 in January 2006.

Heather Hopkins, VP of Research for Hitwise UK, said:

"Traditional print media brands are learning the ways of the web and growth in visits to the categoryreflects a new lease of life for the sector. Yesterday’s positive earnings announcement from the Financial Times, citing online advertising sales up30%, supports the resurgence that offline media brands are enjoying online. Print media websites enjoyeda strong year, with visits up 28% year-on-year in January, making it one of the fastest growingcategories. However, challenging times lie ahead as more and more consumers turn to nimble socialmedia websites for news and analysis.”

NOTE: Earlier this month, Heather discussed a draft of this white paper at a special Editor's Briefing we hosted in Preston. She also participated in the 5th Journalism Leaders Forum entitled "Media Mashups! How Traditional Media Brands Survive and Thrive in a Wired World." You can watch a recording of that session HERE

How many 'portions' of television contributes to a healthy diet?

2007-02-20T13:44:00.000+02:00

Only caught a snippet of last night's BBC - Radio 4 - PM report on children and television that included an interview with Dr Arik Sigmund who synthesized the findings of 35 major studies on the affects of television on children. [Note to BBC: please post a podcast of it on the PM site]. In brief, Dr Sigmund's point, as I understood it, was this: too much TV is very, very bad for kids' brains and (expanding) butts. Speaking for the 'other side' was a bloke from BBC children's TV who argued that 'correlation doesn't mean causation', i.e. just because TV addicts can't concentrate and tend to be obese, doesn't mean that it's TV's fault. And even if there is a problem, he added continuing his Big Mac Defense, don't blame us, we just make the stuff; it's up to the consumers - kids and their parents - to take responsibility for their own media consumption habits.

Reminds me of the ongoing discussions around the use and abuse of alcohol, which are also in the news this week ( "12-year-old Scotch may be the greatest alcohol, but 12-year-old Brits are the greatest alcoholics" ). The contribution by public health professionals - and the some industry players - to the debate has been to promote 'responsible use' - AND to articulate what that means, i.e. guides on how many units a day are acceptable, etc.

Suggestion: Perhaps the BBC - which aims to not simply be a public broadcaster, but a public good - could work with researchers (such as Dr Sigmund?) to develop guidelines for parents (and others) on how many minutes/ hours a day of 'screen time' would be acceptable as part of a balanced media diet.

And The Winner Is... ABC For Best Sell-Out Of An Oscar Telecast

2007-02-16T17:37:00.000+02:00

MediaPost reports:

ABC Thursday wrapped up sales for its coverage of this year's Oscar® telecast, fetching more than (US)$1.6 million per 30-second spot for what traditionally is the second most expensive reoccurring network TV ad property of the year.

I'll soon be auctioning ad space for the officialDolly's© Webcast. Anyone want to open the bidding?

Move over Oscar®, it's time for the ... Dolly's©?

2007-02-13T20:51:00.000+02:00

We've had the the Golden Globe Awards®, the Baftas®, and coming soon are the Oscar's®. Next, I propose, we should have the Dolly’s©. But first some background.

The (UK) Press Gazette this week ran a piece on the use of online video by newspapers in which they quote Guardian Unlimited's head of editor development Neil McIntosh saying something which has been a bit of a mantra for us here at the Journalism Leaders Programme:

The first question newspapers should be asking is 'why would you do this?'

...Asking users to "sit forward" and watch video online is a "big commitment", he says, but the rise of YouTube has shown that there is a huge market for "good, gripping video in short bursts".
McIntosh argues that this has been almost completely ignored by other newspapers. "They are often producing very long things or content that is not very gripping at all, or full of stock images of men in suits walking through revolving doors. That works perfectly well on broadcast television but when you're demanding that the user pay attention for short bursts, you've got to do better than that," he says.
There is no inherent advantage in being a newspaper trying to do video. The only reason why users will come to us, or anyone else, is that we're telling a story as well as, if not better than other places, or in a different way. It's something which we've seen with the success of our podcasts — they are strongest in areas in which we can
actually deliver something which is different from the BBC — and let's face it they're our biggest rival in all of this."

Back to the awards. It will probably be a while before the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (and the like) include a ‘Best Use of IPTV by M(ain)S(tream)M(edia)’ category. So, in the spirit of the ‘citizen journalism/consumer power/we the media etc, I propose the Dolly's© (in memory of the cloning pioneer). With that, I’m taking suggestions for:

1. Award Categories ("Best Immitation of BBC news bulletin"?)
2. Nominees for each category (see above)

Heck, everything's still up for grab. If you don't like the Dolly's© and you've got an alternative suggestion, let me know too.

[In the meantime, I'm going to try to find out more about another quote in Zoe Smith's piece:

Research by Informa Telecoms and Media has found that the trend towards online TV and video reflects wider cultural changes. The company predicts that revenue generated from online TV and video services will rise from $42m in 2006 to $364m in 2009, rocketing to $708 in 2012.

Got many questions about this, including wanting to know the criteria used to generate these numbers. Answers?]

Pause, replay and keep the 'Media Mashups' Forum debate going

2007-02-08T14:07:00.000+02:00

After more than an hour and half, we hit ‘pause’ – not ‘stop’ - on the provocative 5th Journalism Leaders Forum discussion on the challenges facing traditional media in the Web 2.0 Age.

Amongst the many issues raised by the distinguished panel - Jane Singer, Alan Moore, Heather Hopkins and Mark Tungate – was this from Alan:

"Trust, engagement, connectivity, life-enhancement, life-simplification and navigation sums up magazines and their current success, not least through internet contact with their readers. Does this mean traditional [news] brands should look to [consumer] magazines as a template for the future?"

A look at the 2006/2007 World Magazine Trends report from the International Federation of the Periodical Press or FIPP (Fédération Internationale de la Presse Périodique) suggests he may have a point:

The [UK]consumer magazine industry was valued at £2,984 million in 2005, up by £135 million on the previous year. Consumer expenditure increased by 6.2% year-on-year to reach £2,157 million while advertising expenditure rose by 1% to £829 million. Total annual sales increased by 7% to 1,438 million copies per annum which means that since the year 2000, consumer magazines have enjoyed continuous year-on-year growth in both annual sales volume and purchasers’ expenditure. The number of consumer titles published rose by 42 to 3,366 between 2004 and 2005, the fourth consecutive year of growth.

So, why don’t you review an unedited recording of the Webinar here and post your comments on the Forum blog?

The 6th Forum is scheduled for 15 May 2007. We’ll post the details soonest.

Why the 'quite startling' use of the Internet by SA daily newspapers?

2007-02-02T13:02:00.000+02:00

“Yes. Perhaps, but probably not.” Is the short answer to Chicago-based Robb Montgomery’s comment on my previous post:

These measurements are quite startling. I suspect these anemic figures directly correlate to the level of broadband penetration in S.A. What can you tell us about that metric.

Yes, these figures are startling and perhaps some of it can be attributed to Internet accessibility and affordability, in general, and of broadband, in particular. Reports show that just over 10%, internet penetration in South Africa is more than three times that of the average for the continent (a little more than 3%) and about on par with the average for Asia (10%). However, it is far behind the rates in Latin America (16%), Europe (38.6) Oceania / Australia (53.5%) and North America (69.4%). [Check out Helkom.co.za for a primer on the debate in SA].

However, I suspect the lacklustre use of the Internet by the daily newspapers is not simply an issue of access: millions of people in South Africa do have Internet access and around 7 million at home and abroad access news and information sites.

And it’s not primarily an issue of money: World Bank GDP rankings put South Africa at 27th, just below Denmark (26) and above Greece (28), Ireland (29) and Iran (30) . E-tailing was reported up 30% in 2006 to R668 million (about US $98 million) and this year online advertising is expected to be worth around R200million (about US$28million).

And it’s not even an issue of awareness: at the continent’s largest annual conference for journalists, Highway Africa – which is actively supported and attended by most of the major media groups - the Internet has officially been on the local industry’s agenda for more than a decade.

It's not simply an issue of capacity: in 1994, the Mail & Guardian was one of the first newspapers in the world to go online.

It is, I would argue, down to leadership. In that, South African newspaper editors have much in common with their colleagues in the UK (the group with which I have the most interaction) and elsewhere (I suspect) : they've been happy to be seen to be on the web, but are not part of the web. With that they've been happy to let the techies do their thing somewhere else, but not nearly as eager to integrate operations. For example, the two of the largest media houses in SA have built pretty successful 'shovelware' news portals - http://www.news24.com/ & http://www.iol.co.za/ - which operate independently.

But there is evidence of some new thinking, as I've noted before and of which Johnnic Communication's Ohmynews-like site, reporter.co.za, is a further example: The company's hugely profitable Sunday Times newspaper has also recently re-launched its website and have include interactivity which should help build a daily (rather than just weekly) dialogue with their users. Not a bad idea, especially given rumours that they're planning to spin off a daily print paper sometime soon.

Robb, also asked: "Who has it and who doesn't?". Any ideas?

What do you think the Internet use by SA's daily newspapers shows?

2007-01-30T19:41:00.000+02:00

After the Bivings Report released an analysis of the Top 100 newspapers in America and their use of the web last August, I volunteered to take a look at how their South African counterparts were doing.

The SA study kept moving down and along my ‘To Do’ list until, in a last-gasp attempt to clear my list (and my conscience) before I logged off for the Christmas break, I solicited the help of Jethro Goko, a South African editor participating in our Journalism Leaders Programme . Jethro, who edits The Herald in Port Elizabeth, asked a staffer, Duncan Reyneke, to help collect the data. Today, I finally got around to writing some of it up and will keep posting bits as time allows and in response to questions.

The chart here shows the preliminary results of our analysis of the websites of the 19 daily newspaper titles in SA, as monitored by South African Advertising Research Foundation (Amps 2006A). Whatever else it shows – and I’d certainly welcome your insights – it’s clear that South African newspaper websites have a way to go.

While the country's largest circulation (tabloid) daily doesn't have a website at all, there is evidence of some experimentation with multimedia amongst the traditional titles. Notably, Media 24’s Die Burger, introduced audio and video last year.

However, in the main, South African dailies seem to be ignoring the key opportunity the Internet offers – the ability to engage in dialogue and collaborate with users. Or, to paraphrase Dan Gilmore, most still see news as a lecture, not as a conversation. That implies listening at least as much as you speak.

The papers, listed in order of readership and market share, are:

Daily Sun 12.4 none
Sowetan 4.9 http://www.sowetan.co.za/
Isolezwe 2.3 http://www.isolezwe.co.za/
The Star 2.2 http://www.thestar.co.za/
Die Burger 1.6 http://www.dieburger.com/
The Citizen 1.5 http://www.citizen.co.za/
Beeld 1.4 www.news24.com/Beeld/Home/
Daily News 1.1 http://www.dailynews.co.za/
Cape Argus 1.1 http://www.capeargus.co.za/
Daily Dispatch 0.8 http://www.dispatch.co.za/
Cape Times 0.8 http://www.capetimes.co.za/
Daily Voice 0.7 none
The Mercury 0.7 http://www.themercury.co.za/
The Herald 0.6 http://www.theherald.co.za/
Die Volksblad 0.4www.news24.com/Die_Volksblad/Home/
Witness 0.4 http://www.witness.co.za/
Pretoria News 0.3 http://www.pretorianews.co.za/
Business Day 0.3 http://www.businessday.co.za/
DF Advertiser 0.2 none

Note: In order to compare findings with those of similar studies of newspaper title websites in other countries – such as Brazil, Denmark and Italy, New Zeeland and the UK - we did not include the three most popular news portals in South Africa. Independent Online and News24 aggregate the content from the Independent News & Media and Naspers-owned Media24 titles, respectively, while the Mail & Guardian Online is linked to a weekly paper. (Looking at the weekly papers' sites is on my ‘To Do’ list for this year...)

In the meantime, what do you think the Internet use by SA's daily newspapers shows?

Media Marriage Counselling: How New-Old Media Relationships Can Survive, Thrive

2006-12-06T15:24:00.000+02:00

No doubt, the relationship between the so-called New Media and Old Media has gone through some, well, ups and downs. Below you can watch one of the low points: a clash between a grey-haired newspaper columnist and a sprightly 'shockblog' founder.

The ABC News site reports that on 30 November 2006, Glenn Milne, who writes for the Sunday Herald Sun, Sunday Telegraph and The Australian, had to be restrained and escorted from the stage of Melbourne's Crown Casino Palladium Ballroom, after he attacked and berated another journalist during what the Australians consider their most prestigious journalism awards.(Thanks to Geert Lovink for the pointer).

Not all Old-New media relationships are made in hell (or Australia). For a discussion on cases and issues, join the 5th Journalism Leaders Forum at the University of Central Lancashire in Preston or online on February 6th 2007.

Details about the open event and how you can participate in person or online, see the Forum blog.

From Editors' conference in Glasgow: The future of newspapers is already here

2006-11-06T17:09:00.000+02:00

Roy Greenslade isn't given to flattery. But his post on the second session at the Society of Editors' conference in Glasgow this morning gushed with praise:

Rarely has a Society of Editors conference over the years hosted a session in which so many of the contributions were so stimulating and so genuinely informative. The speakers offered both practical guidance based on their own experiences along with some pointers to where we should be going.

Speakers included Simon Reynolds, editor of the Lancashire Evening Post in Preston, who's move to digital was supported in large part by a team from the department of journalism at the University of Central Lancashire. For a summary of the session is available on Gleenslade's GuardianUnlimited blog.

Notes: a discussion on the quality of journalism

2006-09-14T12:15:00.000+02:00

Organisational arrangements aside - the other panelists arrived late and the chair left early - the panel discussion on the Quality of Journalism at this year's Highway Africa conference was, well, a bit thin. Here are the comments I prepared:

Last week, Wired News published a story about wiki collaboration software which had been edited using, what else?, a wiki.

It started when the writer, Ryan Singel, filed a 1,059-word article. Rather than having his editor trim and shape it, they posted the story online on August 29th and challenged their users to edit it.

Singel even posted interview notes and conducted additional research in response to questions raised by the community.

Over the following week, the story went through more than 300 drafts, doubling in size as one reader conducted her own interview and added quotes, wiki vendors added references to their offerings and others contributed additional examples to support the premise.

Singel said the experiment has gone smoothly, devoid of the pranks and vandalism he had feared when Wired opened up the story to changes. With wikis, anyone may change, add or even delete passages, regardless of expertise.

Wired editors released the final version on Thursday [Sept 7th] after editors vetted the story for style and glaring errors.

Of course, though news organizations have tried collaborative articles before, [Esquire magazine ran a similar experiment on a story about the open encyclopedia Wikipedia. The Los Angeles Times also briefly opened its editorials to public editing, but suspended it after being flooded with bad language and even some porn.]

I think that this experiment flags some interesting questions for us as we contemplate the theme of this afternoon’s session: Quality in Journalism.

No, I don’t want to re-hash the debate about “Who is a journalist?’’ Instead, I want to think out loud with you about what the Internet revolution means for the quality of journalism?

You think calling it a ‘Revolution’ is overstating it? After all, Africans know a thing or two about revolutions.

Revolution, according to the Wikipedia (yes, there’s a theme here today):

Revolution is a drastic change that usually occurs relatively quickly. The word
revolution means "a turn around." This may be a change in the social or political institutions over a relatively short period of time, or a major change in its culture or economy. Some revolutions are led by the majority of the populace of a nation, others by a small band of revolutionaries, a so-called palace revolution only touches the ruling elite. Compare rebellion.

So, even if you agree that the advent of the Internet is bringing about a revolution in the mass media, we need to dig a little deeper to figure out: What is the precise nature of this revolution?

What is being “turned around”?

Well, a month past his 75th birthday, the courtly-mannered Australian-born American with the US $60 billion global media empire, Rupert Murdoch, gave Wired writers his take on the matter:

To find something comparable, you have to go back 500 years to the printing press, the birth of mass media – which, incidentally, is what really destroyed the old world of kings and aristocracies. Technology is shifting power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it’s thepeople who are taking control.

The people’s revolution? Doesn’t that sound familiar? Doesn’t that sound like, well, democracy?

But what does it mean to have a democratic media?
Does it mean that information is free and the audiences vote in the marketplace?
And, you might say, that may not be happening everywhere, but that idea could hardly be considered a 21st century revolution?

No, what Murdoch is referring to is the fundamental shift in the relationship between the professional media establishment and the media users.

THE OLD QUESTION: Where will the quality journalism come from?

REALLY ASKING: Do we really trust other citizens with journalism?

Of course, citizens have been questioning the bases for their trust in us – and, in many instances, they’ve come up empty handed – and moved off.

PERHAPS WE SHOULD ASK: How will a generation of talented storytellers use multiple Channels to engage in meaningful relationships with citizens so that they will trust us enough to work with us to create and share stories that are relevant?

What is conversation?
What is trust?

Trust, according to scholars such as Grunnig, Ledingham et al, can be defined as the level of confidence that both parties have in each other and their willingness to open themselves to the other party.

To me that sounds a lot like we’re talking about sharing, transparency?

And we need to take a candid look at the other elements of trust:

Dependability: the belief that an organisation will do what it says it will do.

What is it we as journalists say we will do? What is the ideology that unites this tribe across geographic and other borders?

Mark Deuze notes that the key elements of this ideology have been described by researchers (Golding and Elliott, 1979; Merritt, 1995; Kovach and Rosensthiel, 2001) as:

public service (watchdogs, news hounds, etc.)
objectivity (impartial, neutral, fair and, therefore, credible)
autonomy (free, independent);
immediacy (sense of actuality, speed inherent in the concept of ‘news’)
ethics (responsibility, validity, legitimacy).

I don’t need to dwell on how far we’ve fallen and how often we’ve failed. And, much like the Bafana Bafana and Springbok supporters, our users are fickle, remembering our defeats more vividly than our triumphs (except perhaps when we win the big ones).

The extent and the limits of what we say we can do and attempt to deliver needs to be open.

Integrity: the belief that an organisation is fair and just.

Deuze (2005) notes that considerations of objectivity and ethics as central elements of the ideology of journalism. These relate closely to the notion of integrity, a central element of trust.

To validate our claims of integrity, and so keep the public trust, we journalists have constructed professional codes of ethics and pursued objectivity. But this broad offering of trust by the public has pre-empted the practice of transparency by the journalist. Professional journalists have neither disclosed their sources or their methods as they have exercised their responsibility as trusted information providers to the public sphere.

Citizen publishers such as bloggers also value integrity; but they establish it from the opposite premise. Unencumbered by the requirements of the professional ideology, they tend to be transparent about their allegiances and perspective; and they urge their readers to seek other viewpoints.

As the public’s choice of information sources grows, the validity of this transparency-based model for establishing integrity is likely to increase, at the expense of the existing trust model that the professional seeks to work within. Trust is a critical element in relationships. Most scholars consider this dimension instrumental in an effective and mutually beneficial relationship. Journalists in the future may need to demonstrate increasing transparency, for example through linking to source documents or to transcripts of their interviews, if they are to maintain the public’s trust.

Competence: the belief that an organisation has the ability to do what it says it will do.

Much of twentieth century journalism was based on the premise that journalists needed ‘to know a little about a lot.’ Entrusted by citizens to be their window on the world, many journalists needed to turn their hand to any editorial area, be it news, foreign affairs, politics, economics, social issues, arts and culture, or other fields such as sport. Such versatility was applauded and seen as a mark of a journalist’s professionalism. It also became an increasing necessity as the number of correspondents and specialists was reduced.

Increasingly this professional requirement for journalists to spread their knowledge base thinly compares unfavourably with the range of information offered by the many citizen publishers who have a specific subject expertise or community knowledge (geographic or interest-based) that the journalist cannot match. As Gillmor states, “Journalists cannot hope to reflect the world as well as the world itself” (2006).

In time this is likely to erode trust based on the ‘know everything’ notion of a journalist’s competence.

They don’t necessarily need to know everything – or can’t – but they must have the capability – the ability and the willingness – to engage and build relationships with users.

How do we establish and maintains relationships. Through communication. Principally, convesation. And what is conversation?
Conversation is not me talking a lot. Conversation is not even me making eloquent and entertaining speeches.

Conversation is a two-way street. It’s dialogue. It means listening as least as much as you speak. Are we as journalists capable of that?

What is capability? Ability + Willingness. You can know how to ski, but that doesn’t mean you’ve got the gutzpa, the guts to tackle the high slopes.

For this new conversation we need to have the ability sure – the digital media tools and the skills to use them. We need to learn the digital language, if you will, and continue to develop our vocabulary. But we must also be willing to apply these new communication skills by meeting and engage with people in their space, on their terms. To treat them as equals – not haughtily, not aggressively, not simply as means to your economic or professional ends.

I don’t think that we need to belabour this point, but those organisations that don’t make significant investment in education and training part of their business plan, are likely to be in trouble.

So, to get back to the original theme for this discussion:

the quality of professional journalism in a digital age will depend on how effective we are at using technology as conversational tools to establish, build and maintain relationships with our users.

Oh, yes, Murdoch knows that, too.

That’s why he invested $580million in MySpace. To a meeting of the American Society of Editors in April 2005, he put it this way:

I come to this discussion not as an expert with all the answers, but as someone searching for answers to an emerging medium that is not my native language. Like many of you in this room, I’m a digital immigrant. I wasn’t weaned on the web, nor coddled on a computer. Instead, I grew up in a highly centralized world where news and information were tightly controlled by a few editors, who deemed to tell us what we could and should know. My two young daughters, on the other hand, will be digital natives. They’ll never know a world without ubiquitous broadband internet access.
The peculiar challenge then, is for us digital immigrants – many of whom are in positions to determine how news is assembled and disseminated -- to apply a digital
mindset to a new set of challenges. We need to realize that the next generation of people accessing news and information, whether from newspapers or any other source, have a different set of expectations about the kind of news they will get, including when and how they will get it, where they will get it from, and who they will get it from.

And what is the biggest threat to the quality of mainstream journalism?
It’s the leadership. Leadership - and many of their minions - who won’t share power with citizens. Leaders of journalism who – 12 years after the advent of democracy in South Africa and 12 years after the first newspapers were put online (including SA’s Mail &Guardian) – aren’t aware of the revolution or, if they are, still hope that the it will pass them by.

I’ll leave it there. I look forward to hearing your views.

Gillmor: Citizen journalism needs citizen audiences

2006-01-25T13:28:00.000+02:00

Dan Gillmor, author of We the media, today announced the failure of his much-discussed citizen journalism venture, Bayosphere. His open letter on the lessons learned makes for fascinating reading. (I'm sure that folks at South Africa's pioneering citizen journalism venture, reporters.co.za, will be paying close attention. )

Next week (31/01/2006), Dan will joins others, including BBC Interactive's Pete Clifton, on the panel of the next Journalism Leaders Forum to discuss the impact of citizen journalism on the establishment - organisations, practitioners and the academy. The event, which is part of the residential week programme for the Journalism Leaders Programme at the University of Central Lancashire, will be Webcast live and it open to all.

Is it time for us to come clean about what we really do?

2005-09-07T10:54:00.000+02:00

I wonder if it isn't time that we come clean and admit that the purpose of journalism isn't actually to give 'a voice to the voiceless'? That it isn't about 'keeping the powerful ccountable'? That publishers and editors don't set out to every day to serve their communities? That, instead, when all is said and done, journalism is simply about creating wealth.

That, at least, would seem to be a reasonable conclusion if Pelle Anderson is to be believed. Jonah Bloom, executive editor of Advertising Age, recently asked Anderson and three other designers to rethink how the New York Times ('the Grey Lady') coulld adapt to "the new consumer realities of the 21st century." Anderson made this point:

The core business idea of any newspaper (although the publishers and editors tend to avoid admitting to this) is to deliver a number of readers to the advertisers, or, more precisely, a certain exposure of the ads to a specific audience. The time the readers spend with the papers is the currency the newspapers sell to advertisers, and that time has been steadily diminishing since the '60s. What to do? To just go on producing what to a large extent is an increasingly irrelevant newspaper, like the New York Times does, is not a good idea.
The laws of the market apply to the New York Times as well, and species that don’t adapt will eventually perish. The future is coming, and it's coming fast.

If Anderson is right, then perhaps it could be argued that if those quaint notions about the public purpose of journalism have any use at all, it would be to keep pesky legislators at bay and to allow us to insist that (for the most part) we deserve free access to the raw materials of our enterprise (information)? Perhaps, too, the so-called 'Chinese Wall' that once divided newsrooms and their their public-service ambitions from advertising departments with their profit motives was simply a useful construct by owners and bonus-driven managers to keep a steady flow of talented idealists working long hours for low wages?

Or am I missing something?

Making media matches

2005-08-26T13:11:00.000+01:00

The World Editors Forum weblog reports that a recent survey has shown that almost every second American television station has a tie-in with a newspaper, which got me in the matchmaking mood.

My fist choice for a South African media match would be the SABC and Daily Sun. Why? Well, both Dr Snuki Zikala of the SABC and Dion du Plessis of the Daily Voice seem to be taking their journalistic mandate of "giving a voice to the voiceless" seriously. Du Plessis says the Daily Sun gives a platform to people you've probably never heard of (citizens), while the SABC has been under fire for being a mouthpiece of those to whom you seldom want to listen (government officials). I'm sure the two giants of the local media market will be able to find lots of ways to share resources.

Any suggestions for other media matches?

The (other) N***** who caused all the trouble

2005-08-11T09:41:00.000+01:00

Financial Mail editor Barney Mthombothi says the coverline of the August 7 edition was just a bit of fun (see left). "It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek," he says, "and provocative, but never to offend." But offend, he did. The phone rang off the hook, he says in his latest "Editor's Note". The mailbox was flooded with letters. "Some of the callers were apoplectic with anger."

Mbthombothi must be relieved that Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs ruled on 27 May 2005 that South Africans have a constitutional right to laugh. (Case CCT 42/07 was about the squabble between Laugh It Off Inc and SAB, who didn't think the 'Black Labour, White Guilt' T-shirt was a laughing matter at all. For more background see: http://www.laughitoff.co.za/legal/legal.htm ) .

Paragraph 107 of Sachs' judgement is particularly relevant:

...The Constitution cannot oblige the dour to laugh. It can, however,
prevent the cheerless from snuffing out the laughter of the blithe spirits
among us.
Indeed, if our society became completely solemn because of the
exercise of state power at the behest of the worthy, not only would all
irrelevant laughter be suppressed, but temperance considerations could end
up placing beer-drinking itself in jeopardy. And I can see no reason in
principle why a joke against the government can be tolerated, but one at the
expense of what used to be called Big Business, cannot [emphasis added].

So, yes, Mthombothi has a Constitution right to kid around a bit. But did his joke make for good journalism?

TIP: A really simply way to keep up with the news

2005-08-02T17:17:00.000+01:00

The other day I was asked, once again: "How do you keep up with the latest news from around the world?"
The answer: RSS or Really Simple Syndication software which automatically pushes the latest news from a variety of my preferred news sources directly to my desktop. Of course, the sites must be appropriately enabled. I use SharpReader v0.9.5.1, but there are many other free programmes available for download here.

These are on my list right now:

SA news - Independent Online & Mail&Guardian Online

UK news - The FT (recently named the best paper in the world), the Guardian and, of course, BBC Online

US news - the New York Times and Time magazine

Other news - I also follow a number of blogs to keep up with news and gossip in the journalism industry and a couple others besides.

Those I'd like to subscribe to - but can't because they don't allow RSS feeds - include: News24 and TheMedia .

Got any suggestions for other sites to keep tabs on?

Page 3 girls and other questions about tabloids

2005-07-29T10:46:00.000+01:00

The phenomenal rise of South Africa's tabloids has got tongues wagging within the country's borders - and beyond. For a summary, see this recent post on World Editors Forum weblog.

Perhaps we should build up a reference list of research on tabloids? What about a list of tips on how trainers can better prepare would-be journalists for positions in this fast-growing segment of the industry?

Want to know your EQ?

2005-07-27T10:04:00.000+01:00

There weren’t many options when we got to Groovy Movies & Take-Aways in the West Coast village of St Helena Bay on Sunday. So, after negotiating with my partner, we settled on “Spiderman 2”. It gave me another chance to watch my new favorite movie newspaper editor, J.K. Simmons as the cigar-chomping Daily Bugle boss J. Jonah Jameson. He's a crass, cynical sensation monger and he doesn't care who knows it. Like everything else in "Spiderman," he's a homage to the prototype.

Stricter labour laws and union watchdogs have probably cut down the numbers of those who follow the “J. Jonah Jameson Approach to Editorial Management”. Not too many editors working today can get away with shouting, "You're fired!" Still, anecdotal evidence suggests that more than a few newsroom managers (and others) could use some help with developing their Emotional Intelligence (EI) quotients.

The first step, of course, would be to know where one stands. One's EQ, if you will. Well, here’s a chance. A colleague of mine is looking for participants for research into (EI). The research is all online and involves completing a number of questionnaires.

Taking part has several benefits. It’ll give you a chance to actually experience some of the standardized measures of EI that are used for both research and assessment, and for developmental (i.e., educational or occupational) purposes. Those who take part in the research will also get an assessment of their emotional intelligence, happiness and satisfaction with life, as well as interpretations of these scores.

If you want more information, contact of Kathryn Gardner, at the University of Central Lancashire's Department of Psychology.

Just what we need

2005-07-21T13:33:00.000+01:00

Such a forum is just what we need. Well done Francois for starting one.

hi

2005-07-21T10:14:00.000+01:00

Hi Francois and all
Just to let you know I also joined the blog - looking forward to following the debates here.
Best,
Herman Wasserman

Some gossip about Gilbert

2005-07-14T17:36:00.000+01:00

A little hearsay from the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef) Annual General Meeting this week: '... a more committed journalism trainer you couldn't wish to meet.'
And who was being gossiped about? Gilbert Mokwatedi of Tshwane University of Technology.

Now, I've never actually met Gilbert, but the Oxford University Press editors knew that he had been using an earlier version of Writing for the Media and got him to write something nice about the latest edition for the back cover. Unfortunately, they could only use a few sentences of it, so I thought I might be a good idea to publish the whole piece here.

Over to you, Gilbert:

The world is changing and the media can't be left behind. For the media, the change is visible with regard to technology, culture and the treatment of information itself. Journalists should accommodate new thinking. What worked 10 years ago might not work today.
Walker Lundy, an editor and executive vice president of the Philadelphia Inquirer summed it up with these words: "If you are not in a newsroom that's trying to change, you should be worried".
Education and training are some of the forums and mechanisms enabling journalists to meet the tide and pace of changes.
François Nel's third edition of Writing for the Media comes at the right time when media and non-media practitioners are complaining about the state of journalism in the country and looking for solutions. Computer Assisted Reporting and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) are some of the buzzwords in the media industry. The book comes in handy as it includes a list of available resources relevant to each chapter and also covers new developments in information technology.

PS. The Pew Centre's comprehensive 'State of the Media' report details some of the changes in the US media. Wouldn't it be a good idea to roll out comparative reports elsewhere around the world? Anyone keen?

Mind the media

2005-07-08T23:11:00.001+01:00

Starting this blog on a Friday afternoon in July doesn't really seem logical. Then again, that might just be appropriate. After all, if Mail & Guardian columnist Tom Eaton is to be believed, "the media has no mind, only a nervous system, and any direction it goes in is merely a reaction and not the results of a decision.” The media, Eaton suggestions, scurries around like little worker ants scrapping up specks of nourishment to feed the insatiable blob of idle consumption: “the royal reader, the queenly subscriber, whose every whim must be pandered to, whose interest must be sustained…” Well, despite what Eaton may think, there is indeed a smidgeon of intention, of actual rationale, in the inception of this blog. It is to be a space for people who care to talk critically about the media, in general, and exchange ideas about how to ensure the news media keep on, and keep on getting better. Perhaps starting that conversation on the day after bombs ripped apart lives along with parts of the London public transport system - and those who can and care are glued to the media for updates – has some kind of logic after all.


*Publishers are bullish about mobile.*