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

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

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

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’

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]

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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©?

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

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?

“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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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?