Mark Cuban Defends the Newspaper: "Depth and Differentiation Beat Speed and Regurgitation"
From Mark's most recent post, in which he compares NBA playoff coverage from various sources and finds online options like ESPN.com lacking compared to the Dallas Morning News and Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
Depth and differentiation beat speed and regurgitation ... During the playoffs, I make sure to read the local newspapers because they have made the decision to differentiate their coverage to include depth and in some cases differentiated information, far beyond what is available online. If they invested the same effort during the season, I would be sure to read it every day. Im sure fans of other sports and topics would feel the same way...
Which is all the more reason that rather than focusing on speed and breaking stories, I personally think newspapers and websites need to define their brands to heavy readers like myself through depth and differentiation. Brand yourself as the home of unique stories, not for breaking news. We have been trained that the net has all news 15 milliseconds after its "broken" elsewhere. But if i know that you are the sole home of in depth coverage on things I care about, you got me...
As of today, for today, the newspapers get my business.
Mark's right, of course -- but he also misses the point.
The central problem with newspapers today is not one of content; more people are reading newspaper content today than ever before. That's why local newspaper Web sites are among the most-read sites in virtually every American city. That's the good news.
The bad news is that the transition from paper-based to electronic news distribution is happening more rapidly than the industry can adapt its business models. Just look at any U.S. newspaper company's financial statements; online revenues are growing fast, but not fast enough to make up for sluggishness on the print side.
This isn't happening because newspapers are stodgy and backward (although some are.) Mostly, it's happening because of what Clayton Christensen calls "disruptive innovation."
In navigating the new media landscape, newspaper executives face two potentially disastrous risks:
1) The revenue stream from print will begin to decline (not just grow more slowly, but decline) before the revenue stream from the Web can fill this gap.
2) The revenue stream from the Web will never reach the level of the revenue stream from print.
These are very real possibilities over the long term.
OK, imagine you're the CEO, Mark. What do you do now?
Shut down all your printing presses? Give your content away? Charge for it? Bank on online advertising for your future?
There are no easy answers.
posted by Scott Baradell at
9:20 AM
5 Comments:
Im far from an expert in Newspaper economics, but my first inclination is always the same in all my businesses. Make the things that make us unique our core competencies.
I see a couple things with newspapers. In depth, multi page stories are far more readible in print than online. I would examine getting rid of all the throw away stories.
I think too much space is wasted trying to retain older readers.
There is absolutely no good reason to have stock tables.
There is no good reason to have the myriad of 100 word syndicated fillers.What i call the "Chris Washburn is arrested" stories. Use that aggregate space to enable your differentiation.
And on the revenue front,again, focus on what makes you different. Full and half page ads dont really have equivalents on the net that work. rather than price those ads up, i would price them down on long term exclusive deal.
A full page ad on the net is an intrusion you cant wait to click away from. In a newspaper it gets your attention and has real value.
Again, i dont konw the cost per page, but im sure thereis a way to generate more margin dollars around half page size and up ads, that the net has no response to.
By
mark, at 5/15/2006
Mark,
I'm honored by the visit. And you are right in every example you list. Newspapers need to be changing faster -- in all the directions you mention and more -- if they are going to survive over the long term.
I would only add that -- as a former exec for a media company -- I've seen how hard it can be to turn the battleship around. It's a unique challenge to create a new business model for online content when you are being asked to maintain billion-dollar plus revenue levels, the same margins, etc etc by Wall Street -- and risking disaster as a public company if you can't.
As Avery would say: "No excuses." The media bigs are going to have to get themselves out of this mess. But they're down 0-2, at least.
By
SB, at 5/15/2006
Just because web news has not been monetized doesn't mean it will never be monetized.
Mark's emphasis on focused content seems to fall along the line of a subscription model. It wouldn't go over well today, but as we evolve to more reliance on web-based products and services, rich researched content might have enough of a paying audience to stay viable. (We'll see how Microsoft changes the landscape with subscription based applications.)
As to Scott's point -- I'm not sure if anyone has defined the transition point. It's fair to say that once someone finds it, a stampede will follow.
By
Ike, at 5/15/2006
I think it comes down to exclusive content not found everywhere else.
While more people may be getting more content from papers, more people are also getting their content from different places than ever before - thanks to the net. I love going back and forth between both worlds.
BUT, a lot of it is also repurposed from other sources or from someone else's blog. It's now taking longer to separate the wheat. As a consumer, I want to know for example what I'm reading in ESPN the mag had better be found only there, otherwise, why would I subscribe you know?
Take sports. Look at all the major papers the day after a game in any league. Pool reporters grabbing the breakdown off the AP, all of them rehashing the same thing. BORING. No wonder they lose readers.
I still feel print isn’t dead, but in order to survive, it definitely has to offer something you can’t find anywhere else, which may be Mark's main point.
Perhaps online papers need to shift to more branded 'specialized' content instead of the traditional banner ad.
I'm not saying this is the perfect solution, but I'm seeing more mags run co-op branded advetorials lately.
And I knew if I posted about him, eventually he'd show.
;-p
By
Make the logo bigger, at 5/15/2006
did mark cuban just comment on your blog? alright, scott!
By
Anonymous, at 5/16/2006
Post a Comment
<< Home