Who Represents “The Truth” In MSM?
To say we are experiencing a transition in the world of “news” is the understatement of the century. I’m not sure across how many axes this transition - this war - is being played (print vs. online, blogs vs. MSM, free vs. paid, etc.), but suffice it to say that a big shakeout is afoot and a significant amount of brainpower and advertising dollars are being spent to shape the outcomes. Likely the most intriguing axis of debate - blogs vs. traditional MSM - was recently highlighted in two different stories concerning the New York Times and the Washington Post.
For those of you playing along, the NYT is in the midst of a big advertising campaign with a fresh, new tagline - “These Times Demand The Times.” There was a big hoo hah over this campaign, and the NYT Investor Relations department put out a detailed release on this new initiative, some excerpts of which are below.
NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2006 – The New York Times announced today its new branding campaign, “These Times Demand The Times,” focusing on the high-quality journalism produced by Times reporters in print and online.
“In these incredibly exciting, technologically fast-paced times, consumers and advertisers more than ever are searching for a trusted brand that reports the news with authority, accuracy and clarity,” said Alyse Myers, senior vice president and chief marketing officer, The New York Times Media Group. “Our new campaign speaks directly to these issues: these times absolutely demand The Times.”
The campaign will launch to coincide with the new fall television season. A 30- and 60- second TV commercial will illustrate, in reverse, the unfolding story of how news is reported, beginning with the finished paper in the reader’s hands and working backwards to the reporter on the ground. The spots can be viewed at TheseTimesDemandTheTimes.com, a microsite specially created for the campaign. Other ads will highlight the path of several reporters, editors and columnists with vignettes of their personal stories and how they work as journalists. A special 24-page insert in the paper as well as radio, video and banners online, and targeted marketing on Yahoo! will also convey the message.
********************
“There may be more media choices than ever before,” added Ms. Myers. “But there is still only one brand that can give you all the news, analysis and opinion about everything that is important to your life … that respects your intelligence and helps you decide what really matters — and for advertisers, that delivers the well educated, influential audience both in print and online that is second to none. That’s why the focus of this new campaign is about the quality of our journalism.
“Journalism is everything to The New York Times and we wanted our new campaign to reflect that essential point of differentiation.”
********************
Whew, where to begin. And this, from the former employer of Jayson Blair. Come on, guys, get off the soap box and become a little more human, ok? Now, don’t get me wrong. I read the NYT in both print and online. I think it employs many fine writers and believe it is a top-notch publication, most of the time. And while my friend Fred is perpetually pissed at them due to their Times Select model of keeping some of their best writers inside a walled garden, I think it is hard to argue with the fact that the NYT is one of the best written, most influential publications on the planet. Now that said, could they be any more pompous and self-aggrandizing? So let me get this straight - they think enough of the Internet medium to use it as a vehicle for advertising (so who exactly are they trying to reach on the Internet? A bunch of uneducated idiots?). And they claim to be the “…one brand that can give you all the news, analysis and opinion about everything that is important to your life…”
But somehow they have a hard time connecting the dots between an educated readership that is internet-savvy, critical, desirous of best-of-breed news, analysis and opinion, and other outlets that might provide a welcome complement to what they provide, i.e., blogs written by people who are every bit as influential, educated, and knowledgeable as NYT reporters? The feel one gets from the official press release is “Join the NYT family. We are all you need.” I think that is a very, very bad message to send, and one that will not resonate with the bulk of their readership - assuming their readership represents the kind of following they really want - young, educated, insightful, critical and smart. It just so happens that when you combine these characteristics one other notable feature pops out - Internet-savvy. And these people will not settle for a single locus of knowledge. Because they know knoweldge is resident all over the place, and they will aggressively seek it out, wherever it may reside. Bottom line - yeah, I’ll check you out, but if this is all you’ve got I’m outta here. Not a sustainable model for a rapidly changing world, in my opinion.
Now let’s look at a little story concerning our friends over at the Washington Post. I think you’ll see that their take on other forms of media - most notably bloggers - actually enhance the value of their work, the value of their property and up the game of their writers and editors. My feeling is that this is a somewhat more forward-looking attitude than that held by my friends at the NYT. Anyway, let me provide you some excerpts from an article quote Washington Post editor Len Downie, and you be the judge.
WASHINGTON Speaking at the Online News Association’s annual convention in Washington, D.C., Friday, Washington Post editor Len Downie looked back on the changes in newsgathering and production over the past decade, and listed some of what he thought would be the biggest challenges for news organizations in the near future.
Downie said that when it first became apparent that the Internet would change the news business, executives and editors worried that its influence would erode the quality of journalism, increase competition, and become a distraction for the reporters and editors working on the print edition of the paper. But he said instead that the increased focus on the Web has “improved journalism a lot, way more than we could have expected.”
He said that the 24/7 news cycle has changed his newsroom for the better, with reporters always tuned in to what’s happening and constantly trying to find stories to report for the Web site — and that reporters could add more detail because the Web had “unlimited newshole.”
“I was known for writing long as a reporter, I edit long, and now there’s a place to put it all,” he said.
Reporters love newsroom blogs, said Downie, because they put writers in better touch with their readers: “Everyone in our newsroom wants to be a blogger.”
And the blogs that pick apart every article that the Post produces are a good thing, said Downie, because they “keep the paper honest” and, even if their commentary isn’t positive, bring people to the site.
“Blogs are not competitors and not problems,” he said. “Instead we have a very interesting symbiotic relationship. Our largest driver of traffic is Matt Drudge.”
While it’s true that competition for print media has increased tremendously due to the Web, the Washington Post’s overall audience has now become huge compared to what it once was, Downie added. And instead of weakening the paper’s brand, as he said it was feared, it has strengthened it and made the Washington Post well known around the world.
Listing some main challenges for the future, Downie worried that as people’s attention spans become shorter due to the Web and more readers access news from mobile plaforms on the go, the “contemplative” features of journalism would suffer; he wondered whether online ads would eventually make up the difference from lost print revenue, and whether the results would pay for the kind of professional journalism that people expect; he asked whether edited and verifiable content — and branded content in general — would continue to be important.
Downie speculated that perhaps in the future content sharing between old media and new media would be less of a one-way street, with print media taking cues and integrating ideas from multimedia integration and blogs.
I’m not sure what to say here except to say that Len Downie and the Washington Post truly get it. It’s not about saying “We’re the best, we’re it, we’re Alpha and Omega and there is nothing in between,” it’s about saying “We’re in a changing world, there is stuff we can learn, our people dig it and we can up our game by embracing change.” The thing that is so amazing to me is his recognition of the symbiotic relationship between MSM and the blogosphere. I had written about this “reflexive” relationship in a post about Lonelygirl15, and this same dynamic is at work here. Embracing change is scary. And hard. And the outcomes are uncertain. But Len isn’t afraid. He knows it is more scary and dangerous to stand still, to protect the status quo (see my last post on CEO bloggers and the push-back from the wire services - big surprise) than it is to embrace change.
Between the messaging of their latest ad campaing and their Times Select strategy, it is clear that the NYT has taken a different approach. We’ll see who wins. My bet is on the folks looking forward - not those intent on protecting their backside.
