Newspapers Should Become Digital Marketing Agencies
adrants.com
adrants.com
There is a difference between "journalism" and "newspapers". In a sense, journalism (hard news, soft news, tech news, whatever) is this wide idea, and newspapers are just one implementation. In the past, scarcity of information combined with advertising helped support the business end (see also: TV, Facebook, everything, etc.). It worked so well, in fact, that it could overcome the ridiculous costs of actually making this physical thing to put the journalism in and carry it to peoples' homes. Not anymore. There are examples of journalism succeeding outside of newspapers, but trying to build a physical, for-profit business around journalism seems to be a losing battle [1].
The nice thing about leaning on advertising for your revenue is that it pretty much scales with your readership which pretty much scales with the quality of your journalism and ease of access to it. The not nice thing is that the internet and Craigslist provide basically the same quality of information for free, so this once comfortable equation is suddenly completely failing newspapers. But the equation itself really hasn't changed, so it's not like newspapers can just throw away their journalism.
So the OP suggests newspapers add "digital marketing" to their sales pitch? Sure, okay, that could be very lucrative for newspapers. How does that relate to being a newspaper? If the digital marketing strategy pans out, what incentive is there for newspapers to keep providing that sillly, unprofitable journalism thing?
[1] This is old information now, but I think the basic idea still stands: http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/the-death-of-the-newspaper/?...
If the danger is that newspapers become too successful at selling online services such that they no longer feel the need to pay for quality journalism, I'd consider that to be an extremely premature concern on the order of worrying about looking too strong on your first trip to the gym.
His idea of "fixing revenue problems" is having newspapers pay his company a bunch of money so they convert money that probably would already have been spent on local advertising into money paid for web services. No mention of how much cannibalization was involved in the case studies.
Think of it this way, a small print ad costs $100 for one-time placement. Most real newspaper customers are the ones who can afford $10k-$100k per year.
For that same $100 monthly, we can give that customer a website, SEO, and social-media management--basically opening up a newspaper's customer base to a much wider audience.
BTW, we only do a revenue share, so that bunch-of-money is coming directly from new customers.
When a local newspaper becomes a service agency to the same businesses it covers, will it be able to report on them fairly? Do newspapers who use your service disclose that relationship when a story includes a reference to a business that is paying them to run their web site?
It's why advertising departments and newsrooms are separated at a newspaper.
The truth is that running someone's print campaign and running their website is no different...