Jay Rosen continues the discussion on the new media companies, including a mission statement from the Backfence folk (whom I didn't have time to call today.) I also had a brief chat with him today, and in the course of explaining some of our views, I realized that there are actually two distinct schools in this new media cabal: there's us; and there's everybody else (Backfence, Baristanet, Ventura, etc.).
I don't mean that to sound arrogant. In fact, there are many wise souls who would say that our model is the dark horse.
The differences?:
- The other hyperlocal news outfits seem to be trying to bring paid staff reporter content as close to zero as possible. They'll have some really interesting copy, but I don't believe they can be comprehensive without paid reporters and editors whose daily bread depends on getting today's story, 365 days a year.
- The other folks are an entirely new breed-- covering a niche thoroughly and letting the rest go. Even though we talk about ourselves as a niche player, that's more of a mindset-- The fact is that we're going to play in the same sandbox as the major daily, and will, for some be a subsititute as opposed to an add-on. We're a hybrid of the old and new.
- As part of that (and this is a point that some seem to have missed): We intend to publish a daily tabloid print edition.
- Our advertising model is unlike anything any MSM player has even contemplated. It's not leading edge; it's bleeding edge. We think we can get away with that because we don't have incumbent revenue to risk.
- Because of all the above, I would say that the other school's players are low-risk and relatively low-reward, in that there's a cap on what you can do in a small niche. There's nothing wrong with that-- it's quite rational; has a lower barrier to entry; and may be the one that makes it. We're higher-risk; higher-reward. Again, I think we're in a different game. That said, we may make a beta test of the other model to do some concept-proving.
- Simply put, we believe that others are trying to create something that fills an entirely different role than the MSM players do. We're trying to create something that will first fill the role of the recently-dead #2 newspapers in major markets, something that we think will be positioned to make the right moves to be the something (maybe something entirely different than what we think we are now) when the incumbents run out of seed corn in 10-15 years.
One gentle warning to all of us who are engaging in conversation about what the new media is or might be: There's a lesson I'm constantly hit with as I talk to folks on the street about our plan. Don't forget that we media folk and bloggers are still a distinct market minority. Most people-- even affluent, employed homeowners-- still don't really know what a blog is all about. They've never heard of an RSS feed. They haven't downloaded Mozilla. They only vaguely understand Rathergate. They may care about their neighborhoods, but they don't know the term "hyper-local." These things are not part of their daily lives. And these are the people that we all seek to serve. They may be catching on to these concepts, but they're not there yet. We can help them get there, and we believe that a hybrid model is the best way to do so.
I hope that both of these new schools of media thrive. And, even if we don't, lessons will be learned; sea changes will occur; and I guarantee that the local news biz will never be the same.
Comments