Whenever I visit my wife in Northern Virginia and I read her copy of the Washington Post, I find myself reading stories I know I would have passed over in my local paper, The Florida Times-Union. Why is that? The question has been bugging me since Christmas.

I think what is happening is that the Post has such an aura (of…what?) around it that it just automatically makes everything seem interesting. Although, I think it is not so much that I think what is in the Post is more interesting, but that I make the opposite assumption about the T-U.

The T-U does not have the same staff as the Post, my thinking goes, so the coverage and the story are not going to be as good. Or maybe it’s the headlines. I am going to really watch myself read this week to try to see if I can understand what’s going on.

I do think that, based on my initial observations, cutting staff and thereby cutting the quality of the product, is not the way to go. You can only cut so much before you not only make decision not to read, you make the decision not to buy.

The plan calls for a limited number of free reads per month for everyone, then you’ll have to pay to gain access. Subscribers to the print edition will have full access.

AN EXAMPLE is wheat stored in a silo from a variety of farmers. The exact kernels are interchangeable — what matters is the number of bushels each farmer has stored, not which individual kernels are his.

Too much of news is fungible, i.e., it can be substituted for by others’ news quite easily, so why pay for it? The NYT, and others who will inevitably follow, needs to create content that is unique, that cannot be found by going elsewhere.

How they do that is up to staff creativity and hard work. But who better to show the way than the Times?

The Times is basing its decision largely on the success of the iTunes music and app store. What is the secret of that store’s success? It’s content isn’t fungible. It cannot be gotten elsewhere.

When readers are cornered they will pay. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

PREVIOUS POSTS: Read more about the future of newspapers .

I use this little tale to get my students talking about critical thinking, scientific research, evidence and writing. But it has value beyond the classroom.

One simple parsing of the third umpire’s statement is that naming something helps create the  “isness” of that something. Calling a dandelion a flower is different from calling it a weed,  in terms of our emotional reaction toward it.

Calling the act of charging for the processing of information and data into news a “paywall”
is part of the problem. A wall naturally separates two things. Calling it a wall gives it a  negative spin. Why not call it a portal?

People used AOL for many years as a paid “portal” to both its own content and eventually to
the Internet. That ended after a while not because people refused to pay at all, but because AOL no longer offered content that could not be gotten elsewhere for free.

Despite the many people who say that the toothpaste is out of the tube, that newspapers can’t  go back to a paid web model, I think they can. Maybe. If it is done right and by a lot of papers at the same time.

They may not have a choice.

Sure, they will lose some subscribers, probably a lot of subscribers initially, but if they offer value, people will pay to get it.

People pay today for access for all sorts of cable channels they can’t get for free elsewhere. They pay for cell phones, text messaging, Netflix, and they pay for high speed Internet access, although you can get dial-up for free or virtually so. I bet most people would be willing to pay a few cents per tweet.

The issue is not so much that people WON’T pay, it’s that you have to give them something they want. Then they’ll pay.

I think that’s going to have to be the model moving forward. Give people something they want and ask them to support it by paying. Relying on CPM advertising is no longer a workable model. Corporate sponsorship along the lines of public radio and television stations might help as well.

This is going to be a painful time for newspapers, and the new version won’t look much like the old, but the creative and bold will survive if they can metamorphize from their caterpillar past into their butterfly future.

–

If you need help with your newspaper design, contact me at News Design School.

This post in streaming audio. Right-click to download.

Download audio file (three-umpires.mp3)

1. Good design is important, but content is king. I think most people – except maybe for out-of-work designers – would agree. I do believe the point bears repeating, however. It should become a mantra, chanted throughout the newsroom. Readers don’t care whether you use Arial or Franklin Gothic for your cutlines. They do care about getting good content and design that doesn’t get in the way.

2. Designers are important for setting up the format and overall layout and spacing guidelines, but are less important than reporters and editors to the day-to-day overall product. It almost pains me to write those words, but I think it is true. Push comes to shove, I would rather have writers and editors than designers.

3. Design cannot be treated as a cosmetic add-on after all the content has been gathered. Design concepts must be integrated into the newsgathering process from the very beginning. The best time to think about design is when the assignments are being made. Bring the visual people into the planning meetings. Don’t simply  hit them up on deadline for some clip art to “dress up” your story.

4. I don’t think people who lay out ad-free pages should worry about making each issue a completely unique set of pages. Readers don’t care, and the reality is only a handful of placements on pages work well any way. It would speed up the process to have a designer create a series of 5-6 templates and then get out of the way.

The copy desk folks could then call up the template that fit the best and make the few, small changes the content requires. No need to re-invent the wheel each issue and no need to pay designers to do layouts. That’s like paying police officers to be school crossing guards.

Pages with ads on them need designers even less. The ads pretty much limit what can be done beyond slotting in stories and packages in the space available. Again, get a designer to set up some standards and train the desk folks in the basics and be done with it.

5. I think newspaper designers worry too much about typeface, color and related issues that readers simply don’t care about. Although I think branding and user experience can be helpful in market differentiation, most newspapers have a monopoly. The web, magazines and television are competitors only if you stretch the term a bit.

There’s an understated beauty in black-and-white, and I think an all B&W newspaper could be successful. It would be an easier and slightly cheaper paper to produce. Every buck you could save would help.

I’d spend money on solving circulation problems and getting ink that doesn’t come off on your hands, clothes and tablecloths.

6. I think the Society for News Design has created this monster by (a) handing out thousands of awards each year, and (b) rewarding “pretty” when it should have been rewarding “successful.”

All those awards are ridiculous, and SND still pretty much ignores the vast majority of newspapers in the country, the small-circulation dailies and weeklies. It would be like handing out 15 Best Picture statues at the Oscars. Those awards remind me of the many self-congratulating awards that advertising folks hand out to one another in a number of competitions. The creative ads win, sure, but I want to know whether they succeeded in moving product. That’s a good ad.

–

If you need help with your newspaper design, contact me at News Design School.

This post in streaming audio. Right-click to download.

Download audio file (things-I-think.mp3)

We all know about shrinking newsroom staffs, ad sales and circulation numbers. That’s pretty old news by now. But newspaper designers are facing their own special challenges as more and more papers are moving from the broadsheet format — which itself has been shrinking toward the proportions of a reporter’s notebook — to the tabloid.

Readers seem to prefer the smaller size, and unlike media professionals, don’t seem to equate tabs to yellow journalism. Advertisers have been slower to embrace the tab. That frightens me a bit, because I believe a successful newspaper is going to have to please advertisers first, then bring the readers along.

But it hasn’t stopped at the tab. Papers in Europe, which seems to be leading the way in newspaper innovation, have devolved to the Berliner format (basically an 11 by 17) or even A4 size, the European equivalent of our letter-sized paper. The A4 is 8.3 by 11.7 inches.

But it doesn’t stop there. Jacek Utko, a Polish designer who gained some fame this year for a talk at the weekly TED conference (watch it at http://tinyurl.com/dc8l7y) , believes that newspapers, and those who design them, need to think even smaller, all the way down to mobile phones.

As with the move from bulky broadsheet to tab, the push is from readers who want portability and ease of use. People today are permanently attached, it seems, to their mobile phones, which are used more like portable information and communication devices than as telephones. The iPhone, for instance, is a great little text machine and web browser, but not so good as a phone. People don’t care. The phone part is secondary to them.

Tomorrow’s designer will have to create a structure for the news on less newsprint than ever before, and on web sites, digital readers (e.g., Kindle) and mobile phones.

When it comes to size, bigger may be better, but smaller appears to be winning the newspaper race.

—

If you need help with your newspaper design, contact me at News Design School.

This post in streaming audio. Right-click to download.

Download audio file (newspaper-shrinkage.mp3)

Couple of random thoughts.

The tabloid format still carries enough negative weight that smaller-size newspapers are now referred to as compacts.  I guess that makes the Tryon (NC) Daily Bulletin — an 8 1/2 by 11 and the self-proclaimed World’s Smallest Daily — a sub-compact.  I wonder if the shrinkage will continue and we’ll end up with a pocket-sized smart paper.

It struck me as I was grocery shopping the other day that newspapers and food companies are doing the same thing: shrinking the content as a way to cut costs. Food packages are shrinking while costs increase. Newspapers are shrinking staff and format, forcing stories to be shorter to avoid having a page be nothing but gray body type. I don’t think either move is a good one.

If more and more people get into Twitter and get used to the micro-blogging approach to communication, would it be easier to get people to accept micro-payment news models?

(Follow me on Twitter.)

It is as if the Sunday newspaper carrier is a paid deliverer of inserts, and oh yeah, here are a few pages of news.

On Monday morning when I picked up the paper, it was so thin I honestly thought the carrier had left out a few sections. Nope. Just thinner than ever.

Then I thought about those inserts the day before. ROP advertising is down, but are inserts? Doesn’t seem like it in my local paper. I understand that newspapers get about $25 per thousand for the inserts. This is considerably less than they get for ROP ads, which help increase the pages in the paper.

Clearly, advertisers still want to reach newspaper subscribers, at least on Sundays. In 2007, more than $5 billion was spent on advertising inserts, according to a knowledgeable blogger. It may be lower now, but probably not much.

If the desire to spend that much money remains strong as newspaper readers are going away, what is going to happen to those insert dollars as we move toward the web? Turn inserts into web site pop-ups? That’s not going to work, but I have an idea.

The USPS is losing money. Maybe they could get into the insert delivery business on Sundays — and deliver mail as well, taking Mondays off instead — as newspapers complete their migration to the web. People could sign up or not, saving paper and trees.

Maybe some advertisers would run more Sunday ROP ads instead. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a thick Sunday morning paper again?

I hope someone will enlighten me about the economics of Sunday inserts….

She would edit differently now, she says, mentioning a number of things I have suggested as well over the past few months. Carla Savilli gave these ideas as to what she would change:

“- Move away from commodity news, the news that people can find all over the place
- Drop national and international news, which people can find online or on television.
- Redefine the newspaper niche product for local news. “Focus on what’s intensely local.”
- Reshape newsroom thinking about what people need to know. “Change the notion that we know what people should know.”
- Redefine the role of gatekeeper to one of a guide to information online.”

What she doesn’t mention is that moves in this direction (I would add social media) should also help ad sales as well by making the content more attractive. Businesses will want to be a part of a paper like that. Her comments are found here.

People still like a good tale, well-told. This can’t be done on Twitter. It really can’t be done on blogs. I am not even sure it can be done online. Who can read for more than a few minutes on a computer screen?

Although I truly understand the pressures modern newspapers are under, the last thing they should do is cut the good reads. People who don’t like to read will simply go to the web. Why would they want to read web-styled content on paper? People who like to read will pay for your paper if you give them what they want.

There will always be a need for solid, investigative reporting.

It has been my experience that newspapers are incredibly reluctant to change, even as they read about the trials and tribulations in the industry every day. Despite evidence to the contrary, they seem to keep doing the same old things. Change is necessary, and the changes newspapers have to make to remain alive are not small or easy ones. But change must occur.

One of the many ideas that publishers are having a tough time dealing with is the interactive aspect of news web sites (and can include the print product, too). It is no longer a one-way street. Readers want to be a part of the action. What? Turn over content to the readers???

It’s called User Generated Content (UGC), and you need to make room for it on your web sites and tease to your UGC in the print product. I have talked about this in earlier posts. Set up reader blogs, wikis, photo galleries, and areas where special interest groups can get together and interact with one another. Get a few of your more creative staffers to start blogs as well. Readers will start jumping in with comments.

Get your your paper and your reporters on Twitter. Some readers will want to follow the paper or a particular reporter or both. You can report live action, send out follow-up links to important stories, get story ideas sent to you, and keep up with what people are talking about. Twitter is gaining more traction every day. (You can follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/newsdesign.)

UGC seems to make so much sense because YOU don’t have to pay for it, yet readers want to read or see it. And advertisers are likely to want a piece of the action, too. That’s the point of all this isn’t it? Stop thinking about the old model. Your readers want more.

I also believe that many would be willing to pay for access to a web site that offers them information, interaction, and a pleasurable experience. Many would disagree with me, but I truly believe that if your web site is good enough, and you limit access to some portions of it to subscribers to the print product, you will find takers. Of course, you need to improve your print product as well….

An interesting piece along these lines from a British blog can be found here. Ideas worth thinking about.

Need some help going interactive? Let me help. E-mail me with your questions.