The world as it should be

Three umpires were talking before a game:
“Somes are balls and somes are strikes, and I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
“Somes are balls and somes are strikes, and I call them as they are.”
“Somes are balls and somes are strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ til I call ‘em.

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.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Newspapers are shrinking faster than a cheap cotton t-shirt in a hot dryer, both in terms of the business and the format. Revenues? Smaller. Circulation? Smaller. Number of pages? Fewer. Format? Smaller.

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.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

One of the keys for survival for newspapers is to plan the presentation of their stories from the beginning. You can’t just add-on a “design” at the end of the production process as if it were a can of spray paint.

Yet planning seems to be the last thing many editors and publishers want to do. The reason? No time, they say. No time? GADS!

If you were driving around town on some errands and you were running low on gas, would you keep driving because you didn’t have the time to stop and fill up? I don’t think so.

Yet, at my newspaper design site, News Design School, I send out valuable information to members who at least signed up for the free newsletter, but it goes unseen. I have all sorts of valuable tools and information and tips, and through my tracking software, I can see that only about a third even open the e-mail.

You must use at least 10 percent of your time each week looking to the future, making long-range goals and working to meet them, making plans. Why do journalists fail to see this? We wonder why many newspapers are failing.

Good designs involve planning. Good newspapers involve planning. Survival involves planning. I wish I could convince more people that this is true.