Local is hard...for some

Jeff Jarvis' "Buzzmachine" has a great post about the value of local news. More proof that community newspapers have a rock solid hold on a valuable commodity that many entities want to get their hands on. Here is an excerpt:

"Local is damned hard because no one yet — apart from newspaper companies — has managed to get a critical mass of local content and no one — including me — knows yet how to create an alternative that can gather and share that much and more on new economics. But I have no doubt — no doubt — that there will always be a market for local news. And I have no doubt, too, new tools and means and people — like those behind NowPublic — can be used effectively to help gather it. Still, it’s almost impossible for a metro paper — let alone an international citj{sic} service — to say it is local because the odds that it will have what is local to you are next to nil still. That’s what makes local so hard."

The entire post can be found here.

Jarvis also references another good point about targeting news to certain demographics, particularly younger readers, when he talks about AP's asap: "It’s not about age and demographics, it’s about creativity, quality, efficiency, accuracy, directness." Sound advice. Stop worrying so much about who you are targeting and concentrate on quality journalism.

Participation inequality

I came across an interesting post from Jakob Nielsen, the foremost authority on Web usability. It reaffirms what I posted earlier about how there are far more viewers of user-generated content than producers of user-generated content. An October post on his blog discusses "Participation Inequality." He says most Web communities and online social networks that count on users to generate content share one property--most users are not very active. They "lurk in the background," as he puts it.

Nielsen posited the 90-9-1 Rule.

• 90% of users are lurkers (read or observe but don't contribute).
  
• 9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
  
• 1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions.

Again, I think this points to the need for newspapers to "seed" the community conversation with important information. This isn't really depressing news either...just moving a few from the 90% to the 9% and a few of the 9% to the 1% would have a dramatic impact on the amount of content produced.

The Importance of Audience

The Internet's role in growing readership continues to develop. As I wrote in November, the importance of total audience over mere circulation is a key to newspapers' survival. Audit Bureau of Circulations is now working to integrate circulation, readership and online audience information into one metric that can more clearly compare newspaper readership against broadcast metrics.

We have also recently seen the demise of some pioneering work in the field of user-generated content. Newspapers and other entities are still figuring out a workable model that might lead to all-important revenue generation, but lessons learned from early initiatives should help. Backfence.com entrepreneur Mark Potts shares some of his insights on what might make a successful user-generated, hyper-local Web site on his blog. His points are valid, though I disagree with many. Contrary to his opinion, I think these sites should be about the journalism. Sure, these types of sites need to be about community "conversation" but I believe strong journalism starts this conversation. Relying almost exclusively on citizen contributions to the conversation will set a site up for failure...or at least a lack of compelling content to sustain and grow traffic.

Research backs this up. A recent eMarketer report cited by the Center for Media Research shows that the U.S. has far more user-generated content "users" than "generators."

Great testimonial

Andrew Zuppa, marketing director for American Furniture Warehouse in Colorado, spends millions of dollars a year on newspaper advertising. He believes in the power of newspaper ads, even though he admits the medium is a bit antiquated. Talking to Denver alt-weekly Westword, Zuppa says: "There are more and better filters for people to be able to weed out ads. But if you're getting a newspaper and you're reading it, you have no filter for that ad. What other media can say that?"

Zuppa still values newspapers, even if their demographic skews older now. Older people buy furniture too, he says. "It's a little bit hard to grow audiences with newspapers, but at least you have a sense for who these folks are, what they want to see, and what messages work."

Newspapers must find people like Zuppa in their communities (they do exist) and enlist their aid in proving that newspapers are not a dying medium. Testimonials and word-of-mouth advertising are among the most effective ways to promote anything.

"We must all save newspapers"

The Providence (R.I.) Journal published a fantastic letter to the editor today, as noted by Boston's alternative weekly, The Phoenix. Brian Wilder of Cranston writes eloquently and makes a very important point: The newsgathering ability of newspapers far exceeds that of even the most robust competitors and people still need the deep, rich information produced by newspapers.

"As imperfect as newspapers are," Wilder writes, "I want to get more, not fewer articles and investigations written by professional journalists that detail the facts behind the latest town, state and national events and controversies. The Internet, by contrast, is a jumble of opinion blogs and Web sites that provide no regular coverage of a spectrum of day-to-day events, certainly not in any detail, and operates with no accountability for what is published."

Newspapers would be wise to talk to more people like Wilder. They are in every community in America.

So long, Backfence.com

Backfence.com, a group of hyper-local news sites relying almost solely on contributions from the community, has announced it will be shutting down its sites. In a sense, Backfence was a pioneer in the field of reader-generated content (or "community journalism" as some call it) even though its approach was ultimately flawed. Much can be learned from the ideas that formed the foundation of the well-funded company. (I wrote about Backfence when it started up. Get some background
here.)

Backfence and similar startups were seen as mild threats to newspapers. Years later, newspapers still hold the advantage. I think the lesson here is that communities still need newsgatherers. More importantly, they need editors. These functions still provide more value than sites like Backfence, which mainly act as conduits for whatever community contributors are ambitious enough to post items. Counting on the community to fully stock your Web site with content is not advised. The key here is balance: engage the community and embrace their contributions (especially event notices) but maintain your responsibility for bringing important content to them.

Salvation in Tupelo

If you are looking for ideas on just how to run a community newspaper, I urge you to check out the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal in Tupelo. The Daily Journal is owned by the non-profit CREATE Foundation established by the late George McLean. Its purpose is to improve the quality of life for every citizen in Northeast Mississippi and the newspaper plays an important role in that mission.

Here is just one line from the 10 principles that guide the newspaper in its coverage as written by former publisher McLean:

"We pledge the best efforts of this newspaper and its staff to the promotion and realization of a better life for every person in every aspect of existence."

In my opinion, this is how community newspapering should be done. These principles are must-read material for publishers. Sure, some of them are divorced from certain harsher realtiies facing many newspapers today. But the spirit--the intent, anyway--should exist in every newspaper in America.

More "Good News"

Cheers to the Edinburgh Evening News in Scotland. According to this
story, the newspaper covering Scotland's capital city recently published a special issue devoted entirely to good news. The paper renamed itself the Edinburgh Evening Good News for that issue. Coverage celebrated "good things about Edinburgh and the Lothians." Stories included a new warehouse store opening that created 300 jobs, a local musician signing a record deal and a "How to Cheer Yourself Up" guide.

I'm sure many would consider this move heresy and editorial folks might bristle at the idea, but the stunt raised the profile of the paper and the issue of the role of local newspapers, said Editor John McLellan. It got people talking and that is a good thing. Plus, it immediately dispels the claim that newspapers print only bad news.

"There is nothing in the paper that wouldn't already appear; we have just gathered it all together and made sure that nothing negative slipped through," McLellan told the HoldTheFrontPage staff.

As I mentioned in my June 20 post, newspapers need to do a better job pushing good news stories to overcome the negative slant of most news. The Evening News' special edition is a little gimmicky, but I don't see much harm being done. It might be worth a try stateside, at least for an annual special section.