Report: User-generated content won't hurt credibility

A recently released report on user-generated content on newspaper websites found people want to participate, they don't think it diminishes the credibility of the news organization and they want the newsgroup to block inappropriate behavior -- no free for all.
The report, entitled "Striking a Balance Between Community Journalism and Citizen Participation: A Research Study About User-Generated Content on Newspaper Websites" was funded by the Suburban Newspapers of America Foundation.
Conducted by American Opinion Research, the report shows users want to contribute to a newspaper’s website.

Newspaper website users say they are more likely to visit and enjoy sites that allow them to share opinions and content.
Users also make some fairly clear distinctions about what they want to post on a newspaper website.
Perhaps given the broad use of social networking sites, far fewer would post personal information (including photos and videos) than want to comment on stories or give their opinions about issues in the news.
However, users do not want newspaper websites to become a “free for all;” most favor some specific requirements or restrictions on postings.
Simply put, users want to post content to newspaper websites; it will increase their use and appreciation of these vehicles. But, they want the newspaper to create a framework for this sharing of information with some mechanism to ensure crude or inappropriate content do not appear.
Finally, most users reject the argument that allowing user-generated content diminishes a newspaper’s credibility or journalistic integrity.

The full report can be found here

Future of News: A small newspaper perspective

Last weekend, my presentation for the "Other Future of News" in Minneapolis was focused a representing the "small newspaper" challenges. The event was co-hosted by David Brauer of MinnPost.com, and Taylor Carik of BringMeTheNews.com.
This event came on the heels of another Future of News conference with Minnesota Public Radio that had a lot of big dogs, very heavy solution discussions but didn't really get into the entrepreneurial spirit that is emerging. OFON I felt did that well. The best blog on it (while incomplete) is from Julio Ojeda-Zapata of the Pioneer Press
I had five minutes and couldn't completely cover even all that I was prepared to talk about so here is a little more of my presentation:
There is too much discussion floating around about the decline of news organizations taken solely from the perspective of the major news organizations.
The metros have the larger megaphone. They are laboring under a different set of circumstances than the non-metros. Metros have huge and isolated debt loads. They had (and still have) very high advertising rates as well as operating costs. They are limited in their ability to respond quickly because their size forces the creation of more "silos" in departments which means collaboration is minimized.
Non-metros, on the other had, are suffering from limited investments, lower salaries and a move for more centralization. However, they still retain the ability to move faster and more collaboratively within their own walls. They also are much closer to the communities they cover and subsequently have more emotion invested by readers and advertisers. Anything small news organizations try in a community will get you instant feedback. That's a plus.
That said, conspicuously missing from the discussions on the future of news is a representative voice from vast majority of community newspapers that are trying some innovation albeit on a shoestring.
At the Free Press, we don't have the most modern of equipment and we are hard-wired to our awful corporate online design from which we will be freed by late January 2010. My newsroom is slaving away with the old bubble iMacs operating on an antiquated OS9 system. To compensate for the lack of tools, we have peppered some PCs and laptops around the newsroom to give them access to what they need.
The evolution here is slow both in the newsroom and more importantly with our sales department. In the newsroom, I would venture that about 20% are fully engaged and, frankly, that's the segment I spend time with. We are encouraging moving to "mobile journalism" (mojos) to expand our territory.
And yet our sales force is still grasping to fully comprehend how to intertwine both print and online as a multimedia package. We also are struggling with online advertising design that moves away from print design principles.
Contrary to some belief, news organizations are not trying to catch up with innovation. In the late '80s and early '90s, news organizations were exploring new opportunities with such groups as New Directions for News with Jean Gaddy Wilson. The problem is we didn't come up with any silver bullet then either.
So what's the urgency now? It's not readership which has been slowly migrating to other media over time; it's advertising. And everyone in all media is suffering from the lack of it.
Yet, discussion about our future is focused chiefly on how to deliver content. That is misplaced (Later, I will argue it's not HOW the content is delivered but WHAT kind of content is delivered.) Yes, content needs have changed but we are finding newspapers are raising rates and increasing revenue. So content is not the major issue.
Secondly, no discussion should be seriously considered without a viable plan on how to monetize it.
One of the suggestions I offered was for reporters and editors to take an advertising rep out for lunch to learn what challenges they face and advertisers are telling them about why they aren't advertising.
That prompted a "tweet" from SPJ_DMC that said "Uh, got ethics?"
Is it really the preference of journalists to keep an arms distance away from those people who bring in the money to help pay the salaries of our news organizations? Why? Is it because they fear trust in our reporting will be tainted. Well, sorry, but that bus has already left the station and it had nothing to do with perceived coziness with the ad staff.
Then there's the demeaning stereotype that salespeople have no ethics. If journos would talk with the ad staff, I'm certain they would learn that ethical behavior is just as important for them. Their clients have to trust them or they won't get the business.
And while I wasn't suggesting reporters should talk to advertisers, I'm warming up to that idea. As one tweet following the OFON conference said "Have journos closed themselves to valuable resources by refusing to talk to advertisers?"
Journalists should treat all sources regardless of who or where they are with some skepticism but not avoidance. I think reporters have enough backbone to say no when presented with a proposal that doesn't smell right.
I'm asking that journalists listen not negotiate for stories.
In an earlier life, I was with a group of very talented journalists with our own regional magazine. We wrote the stories, shot the photos, sold the advertising and handled distribution. The entrepreneurs of today and survivors of the decline will need to be a jack of all trades. T.D. Mischke found that out when he lost his job at KSTP and moved to City Pages.
As one participant at OFON said, "Now it sounds like journos have to be tweeters, videographers, bloggers AND marketers." Yep. Probably.
One of the major initiatives we started this year was something very simple and yet will mean the very survival of our business. Listening.
For our advertisers, we started a feedback loop on the effectiveness of their ads. We are asking them "Did if work for you?" Knowing that an expectation like that is paramount, our designers and ad reps pay closer attention to what the ad will say, how it is designed, when it will appear. They have a vested interest in the success of that ad, just as much as the advertiser does.
We then will collect what common principles appear to make an advertisement effective and use them on further designs.
For the newsroom, that means listening to our readers. We have commissioned the Organizational Effectiveness Research Group at Minnesota State University-Mankato to do a consumer study that asks specifically what information they need to plan their day, choose their entertainment preferences, make decisions about work, get engaged with their child's school, become more involved in local politics. We wanted research from the consumer perspective, not the newspaper which typically asks do you want more state news, national news, movie reviews, etc.
We then will look at how we can provide those pieces so we can be relevant.
We hope to have the results of that study by the first quarter of 2010.

Future of News: Better include talk on advertising

It's the Monday after a day-long weekend conference in Minneapolis titled "The Other Future of News" crafted by David Brauer, MinnPost's local media reporter, and Taylor Carik, with BringMeTheNews.com. As the early morning speaker, I had a fresh crowd and thankful for it. But I had five minutes and rushed through a lot of points. Only later could I see what was being "said" (Tweeted) about the remarks. It was eye-opening to see your passion distilled to 140 characters or less. Later, I will expound on that presentation but one point quickly for the OFON participants.
One of my suggestions was our news folks should take an advertising sales rep out to lunch to find out what the world is like from their perspective. What are advertisers telling them about why they are or are not advertising.
Some thought I was suggesting reporters should sit down with advertisers. Not so; that maneuver should be reserved only for the stout-hearted and preferably management such as editors. What I was suggesting was getting to know more about those people -- the people who bring in the advertising money for your news organization and who have a direct impact on your livelihood.
Journos should talk to circulation people to find out what people are saying when asked to buy a subscription. Page Designers should talk to press people to find out if their color screens choices are best for reproduction on newsprint.
Journos should collect information from as many sources as they can especially if they are wondering why some decisions are being made that affect them and their livelihood.
But we should challenge long-held notions about news organizations and separation of departments. Many of our news entrepreneurs (some forced into their situation by the economy) aren't going to have the luxury of isolation and comfort of a well-heeled organization. They will be reporting and collecting information, disseminating in lots of various ways but most importantly they will be finding a way to make a living off of it.
Shouldn't journalists of today know the Business 101 of newspapering, TV and radio broadcast? If for no other reason than to prepare themselves should they need to be their own boss. T.D. Mischke of City Pages and formerly of KSTP, and another morning speaker at OFON, shared what he found out moving from traditional radio and then finding out what he needed to do to monetize his talent.
But we'll go into that more in a later post.

Finding out what readers want: Stage One

In an earlier post, I took up the challenge by Alan Mutter who said

"It’s time for editors, publishers, academics and foundations to pony up for serious, in depth and disciplined study of what consumers want, what they need and how journalists and media companies can provide it."

While it may not be to the scale Mutter is suggesting, we have commissioned a study with the Organizational Effectiveness Research Group at Minnesota State University in Mankato for such a study. Breaking away from the templates usually employed by research firms used by newspapers is no small feat and some feedback would be welcomed.
We were trying to get away from the traditional survey questions: "Do you want more orless of ..." "Are we doing a good job reporting on...." These types of questions are drawn from the perspective of the newspaper than the reader.
Instead, the charge to OERG was to ask as though you were a consumer. We also are using motivators drafted from the Readership Study conducted by Northwestern University.
Here are summaries of some categories being explored:

What information do you need to:
-- Help plan your day?
-- Assist when thinking of dining out?
-- Know more about working in south central Minnesota?
-- Help better understand what is happening at your child's school?
-- Help decide your entertainment and cultural choices?
-- Get a closer perspective on local higher education (we are in a university community)
-- Better understand local and state government actions or decisions that affect you?
-- Get closer to what is happening in your neighborhoods?

We do offer some suggestions on what those pieces may be. For instance, on local K-12 schools we suggested: Features on local teachers, unique classroom activities, after school activities, local school funding, school board meetings, standardized test results, advances in effective teaching methods, etc.
We also left an open-ended slot for further advice.
For each category we then will ask what medium (newspaper, radio, tv, internet, friends, family) is best used to provide that information now and how well that medium is performing.
This is not meant to replace the newsrooms ability to spot and choose what stories are occurring in our communities but help us understand what our readers are telling us they need.
This is a draft so we welcome any additional suggestions on questions. The one requirement we gave to our research team was the result has to be actionable. So such things as "Reading the Free Press makes me feel good about myself" while is nice to know doesn't get to the heart of what changes need to be made to be more relevant.

Do smaller news orgs have elusive solution?

Another in a string of conferences on the "Future of News" was held this time in Minneapolis November 16 and yielded what was acknowledged by the summary white paper, and I paraphrase, "We agree there's a problem, the stakes are high and we need to find solution."
This was a predictable conclusion because there was scant representation of rural, community newspapers even though they make up the vast majority of newspapers in this country.
Panelist Ken Doctor found more redeeming value in what he termed the "wankfestapalooza" than I did saying he heard some new answers -- like sharing of resources. However, the discussion is still focusing on "national" or "big city" news organizations.
Let's get to the crux of the problem here:

Journalism is not dead nor are the news organizations that support it. We are going through a very dramatic shift but not anything we haven't seen from earlier times when other technologies caused a disruption to our comfort zone.
News consumption by all news consumers is up, way up, in some cases. So if our main product is news, the market is growing by leaps and bounds. Distribution and revenue models are more of the question. The notion that journalism i.e. news consumption, is dead, is preposterous and ridiculous and not supported by the facts.
I will acknowledge that we effectively lost classifieds and will not be getting them back as they were. We need something different to retrieve some of them and there are models being tried today. (ADDED: However, the losses to the metros were more pronounced chiefly because of both their volume and high rates. The fall of community newspapers was not as far.)
Local ROP advertising (if constructed well) does continue to work for our advertisers especially those in regional hubs. In fact, a recent Yankelovich study found traditional media, especially newspapers, still is the most effective advertising method. However, the economy has forced
businesses to scale back on ALL media.
(ADDED: National advertising has nearly dried up for metros while it chiefly left community newspapers back in the '80s.)
Preprints for all newspapers are the latest battleground at the negotiating table with demands of unprecedented concessions in rates. Besides capitulation, some modifications here include partnership such as Zip2Save which provides advertisers an online alternative with a print component to help in the transition.
However, circulation rate increases - while affecting units - is showing revenue growth because a good chunk of readers apparently aren't shying away from paying more for a product they value. (ADDED: This appears to be holding true for some but not all newspapers depending on region and other factors.)
There seems to be agreement that online revenue will not replace the amount of revenue we now see from traditional sources. However, it will be a strong niche income producer not unlike our other products newspapers are offering such as city magazines or other niche publications.

In other words, the business model is being reshaped as the revenue mix shifts possibly bringing in less from advertisers and more from consumers. The challenge
to newspaper organizations is to ensure we have the right mix that allows for us to engage our communities, give the best results to our advertisers and yet fund the best journalism we can. That first goal is the most important.

Despite the white paper starting out with a quote offered by Jim Hoolihan, CEO of the Blandin Foundation that "Newspapers should aid the community in achieving the dreams of its people," there seemed to be very little mention of how our new models will strengthen our communities.
Instead, as one blogger noted, we are now bumping up against conferences that are saying and finding out the same thing. The problem is the conferences focus on a question -- who will be the king of the hill -- rather than a solution. Isn't it
about time we looked at it from another angle? Can we finally acknowledge that one of the reasons we are not finding solutions is because we are not focusing on the obvious.

First, the consumer -- are we giving them what they want or just what we THINK they should have. We have scant research being done on what consumers want. We have commissioned Minnesota State University-Mankato to undertake such a study and have thrown out the templates newspapers have used for decades instead challenging our researchers to look at it from the perspective of users not providers.
Second, consider the geographic community -- we are spending too much time talking about serving the very specialized audience (audiences on mobile phones, social media, etc.) without acknowledging those platforms have relatively small penetrations in our non-metro communities. Yes, they should be in the mix of communication methods but for now at least they are not predominant.
Third, what do we mean by engagement? In some cases, reporters and editors will tell you they already are engaged. But there is always more engagement possible. For example, we found out differently during a meeting with representatives of our various minority citizens who found us to be less than approachable. We at The Free Press are working to rectify that. But it took a face-to-face meeting to find that out. Are the leaders of the larger organizations willing to reach out at the neighborhood level?

Pew Center research finds respondents are less trusting of us. Is it because we continue to stand aloof rather than amid?
As the news organizations evolve, we cannot continue to ignore significant segments of our community. And we must acknowledge they use various methods of communication. We need to engage them in a very personal level and creating "communities" through social media will not get this done.
And that last point is something community newspapers always found to be their strength. Community involvement, engagement and helping set the agenda for development and progress. No one medium can do this anymore.

I offer this as one possible mutation: Community news organizations as the heir apparents to the larger organizations. We KNOW local. Could one succession be that smaller "neighborhood" newspapers print & online emerge under one umbrella utilizing all aspects of online & mobile portals for further engagement? Maybe even partnerships with those once considered competitors.
For instance, we are working on shared content agreement with Minnesota Public Radio that gives them reach and enriches our offerings.
This may mean smaller newsrooms of specialized reporters and using professional editors to work with able neighborhood representatives serving as "citizen journalists." Online would be used for both engagement and enrichment of story development with the communities we serve.
More than likely this development will happen with entrepreneurs or present community newspaper publishers will to take the risk.
The likelihood of larger organizations morphing into this new model is slim. They are loathe to breaking themselves up and the newspaper guild would be hard pressed to accept reduced benefits and wages. With both backed into this corner, some of them are more open to government bailouts while community newspapers are foregoing the tin cup.

Finally, future conferences need to be less about jockeying for power and more about finding solutions that include all news providers not a select few and all media not just the emerging digital media platforms.

Seeking consumer definition of local news

Alan Mutter's latest blog post Wild guesses won't solve journalism crisis concludes with this admonition "It’s time for editors, publishers, academics and foundations to pony up for serious, in depth and disciplined study of what consumers want, what they need and how journalists and media companies can provide it."
That is exactly what we are doing with a survey team from the Minnesota State University at Mankato. We deliberately avoided using the traditional newspaper survey companies because we wanted a fresh look. And frankly out of all the years doing surveys, we tend to ask the same question framed by news producers, not news consumers.
Rather than ask "do you want more local news?" we are seeking the consumer's definition of local news.
The discussion with Associate Professor Lisa Perez of the Department of Psychology was simple. What do people need to direct their lives and how can we provide it.
I have no idea what will come of this experiment but in all likelihood it will raise more flags for us to explore. But the study being suggested by Mutter is getting underway.

Let the market, not largesse, save journalism

Former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. not only thinks journalism is heading for extinction but believes its salvation can only come from a mix of philanthropy and federal intervention, including using taxes.
In the report The Reconstruction of American Journalism co-authored by Michael Schudson, professor at Columbia University, six solutions were offered to the state of affairs now afflicting news media.
While there was some modest attempt at providing a business model solution -- digital commerce and target marketing -- for the most part the survival of journalism, according to Downie and Schudson, depends on largesse. God help us all if that's our future.
Here are the six recommendations:

1. The Internal Revenue Service or Congress should clearly and explicitly
authorize any independent news organization substantially devoted to
reporting on public affairs to be created as or converted into a
nonprofit entity or a Low-profit Limited Liability Corporation serving
the public interest, regardless of its mix of financial support, including
commercial sponsorship and advertising. The IRS or Congress also
should explicitly authorize “program-related investments” by
philanthropic foundations in these hybrid news organizations—and in
designated public service news reporting by for-profit news
organizations. (Since we already have non-profits reporting on the news,
I'm not really sure the necessity of this.)
2. Philanthropists, foundations, and community foundations should
substantially increase their support for news organizations that have
demonstrated a substantial commitment to public affairs and
accountability reporting. (With the tremendous strain many non-profits
are feeling today and with the shrinking pie, this has little chance of
opening the purse strings for journalism.)
3. Public radio and television should be substantially reoriented to
provide significant local news reporting in every community served by
public stations and their Web sites. This requires urgent action by and
reform of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, increased
congressional funding and support for public media news reporting,
and changes in mission and leadership for many public stations across
the country. (Good idea to a point. I've always been in favor of expanding
our news coverage by sharing stories with public radio and television.)
4. Universities, both public and private, should become on-going sources
of local, state, specialized subject, and accountability news reporting as
part of their educational missions. They should operate their own news
organizations, host platforms for other nonprofit news and
investigative reporting organizations, provide faculty positions for
active individual journalists, and be laboratories for digital innovation
in the gathering and sharing of news and information. (I'm not sure propping
up newspapers is really the mission of our universities.)
5. A national Fund for Local News should be created with money the
Federal Communications Commission now collects from or could
impose on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or
Internet service providers and administered in open competition
through state Local News Fund Councils. (This is one of the most problematic
of the suggestions. Not only is this rife with practical problems, using tax
money to support journalism is the antithesis of the role of The Fourth
Estate, is it not? One could argue that newspapers already receive some
government support from sales tax relief, legals and the Newspaper
Preservation Act. But direct funding from tax dollars is going beyond
the pale.)
6. More should be done—by journalists, nonprofit organizations, and
governments—to increase the accessibility and usefulness of public
information collected by federal, state, and local governments, to
facilitate the gathering and dissemination of public information by
citizens, and to expand public recognition of the many sources of
relevant reporting. (Yes, we all could do more to lead the horse to
water. But until we can increase the engagement factor of our readers
rather than making information they should know more available
this will be an exercise in futility.)
You will note that very little of this resembles a business model for journalism. As writer Howard Weaver on Twitter said "If the market won't support journalism, what makes us think society values it?"
Dan Gillmor noted correctly -- in my view -- that some element of market solutions have to be considered.
But even more importantly I wonder is why the discussion still centers on the health and well-being of the major metros as though our industry's future depends on their survival. We ignore that fact that there were 1,408 newspapers as of 2008 and 80 percent of them have circulation of 15,000 or less.
Even the authors admit these paper are not at risk. "Many of those less battered by the economic downturn are situated in smaller cities and towns where there is no newspaper
competition, no locally based television station, and, as is the case for now in many
communities, no Craigslist. Those papers’ reporting staffs, which never grew very
large, remain about the same size they have been for years, and they still
concentrate on local news."
That's the point exactly. These newspapers concentrate on local news, are connected with their communities. Isn't that the winning formula? The louder voices in this debate come from those most worried about survival because, I posit, they are the ones who despite having the largest staffs and higher salaries are less connected with their communities.
Now I'm just a small town publisher but it strikes me that survival of the newspapers and, yes, journalism, will depend more on experiments such as those at Cedar Rapids with its Complete Community Connection initiative. We need to be more attuned to our communities, giving them news, solutions and analysis they can use and let the market control the outcome. If not, there isn't any amount of tax dollars or donations that can make our communities want to read us.