Gallagher: A bad idea mixed with the good ones
September 17, 2007 in Multimedia views
Back in March of this year, we looked at some of the hurdles college news publications (and radio and TV for that matter) face if they were to consider reinventing themselves as online-only publications: The all-digital college news publication. #
We’ve even featured Eastern Connecticut’s student newspaper, the Campus Lantern (site appears down right now), which went online-only last year. #
Now, Sean Gallagher of LATimes.com throws the idea out to California student newspaper editors (hat tip: Rachele Kanigel’s Student Newspaper Survival Blog): #
“Kill your paper,” Sean Gallagher, the LATimes.com’s managing editor for section development, told about 60 college newspapers editors who gathered at UCLA Saturday for an editors training session sponsored by the California College Media Association. “Stop publishing your print paper.” #The sad part of it is that Gallagher has a lot of great ideas for student media organizations – database projects, multimedia, web-first publishing, and other things we’ve harped on for a while. #He suggested student newspapers “take the money from dead trees and put it into training.” #
But those good ideas are wrapped up in an unfeasible main point: many student newspapers are in no position to go online only – economically, culturally, or philosophically. (note: every college publication is different, operating under different structures and getting funding from various mechanisms. What follows are some generalizations) #
Economics: Many school publications make the vast majority of their operating expenses through ad sales in the print edition. Online revenues are a pittance for most. And many papers outsource their web presence anyway, which keeps them from realizing any sizable income from web sites. There is NO WAY a publication with a significant operating budget (electric bills, student paychecks, advisers, equipment, etc.) is going to be able to go online only. #
It’s relatively easy to talk about investing the money saved from the print edition in training, but the whole operation is a training exercise. And – specifically in college news media – the savings from cutting a print edition would doom many a paper. #
Cultural: A colleague on the CMA listserv makes the point that college students still pick up the campus newspaper. They are not as likely to view the college newspaper web site. That’s something of a chicken-and-egg problem (if people pick up the print product and then see the same thing online, there’s little reason to go online), but it remains a valid argument against going online only. Many students would totally lose touch with their campus newspaper if it were online-only. For now. In 2, 3, 5 years that might be different. #
Philosophical: Many college journalists (and even faculty) are just now getting the idea that the web site is a significant part of their media organization. But they are nowhere near ready to put all their efforts into an online-only publication. Attempting to move these organizations online-only while staff remain committed to the print edition would drive away more students than it would draw, IMHO. #
That said, I’m sure there are some college publications that would benefit from moving to an online-only schedule. But it’s not an idea I’d recommend for most at this juncture. #
I can give one good reason NOT to stop the print publication:
The comics and crossword/sudoku. Most non-journalism students I knew said they only picked up the paper for the free comics and crossword to do in class.
I remember going around to several racks in building hallways and seeing the A section either left in the rack or on the floor, while the B section (comics, crossword) was taken. We joked that we should start putting the sudoku on the A section front to get students to pick up both (Interestingly, as of a few years ago, the Quad City Times had sudoku above the fold on their A fronts for their rack copies, but not the home editions. )
I agree with Brian's comments about the absence of financial feasibility for many college papers — certainly dailies and larger weeklies — to go online-only until there is a business model which allows most existing advertising to move from print to online.
But one line jumped out at me that I disagree with:
"And many papers outsource their web presence anyway, which keeps them from realizing any sizable income from web sites."
Here, Brian is clearly referring to College Publisher, a company which hosts hundreds of college media web sites. But I find this comment *way* off the mark, and quite biased against College Publisher. College newspapers trade national advertising space on their web sites with College Publisher in return for free hosting, software and support. So all that college papers are "giving up" is national advertising revenue; college papers keep whatever local, campus and classified revenue they can sell. Now for most college newspapers, national advertising in print accounts for only 15% to 30% of total ad revenue. So saying that college papers are prevented "from realizing any sizeable income frm web sites" is incorrect.
And in fact, a small number of college newspaper web sites are now earning significant revenue from local ad sales on their web sites. But most college papers aren't, and the blame can't be placed at the feet of College Publisher. Readership rates of most college newspaper web sites is far too small, especially among college students, for most papers to make significant money from ad sales on their sites. And many college papers either aren't trying or aren't having much success selling local ads, as you can see from the absence or low levels of local ads on their web sites. Until we all build more compelling web sites that attract students as must-read destinations, and build traffic levels by a huge amount, college newspaper web sites will not be able to generate enough value to advertisers for papers to make enough money from online ads to surpass a print edition. National advertising and College Pubisher is a factor in the revneue picture, but it's far from the top or driving issue.
Oh, and why would college newspapers want to kill their print editions if they still have 80% to 90% readership of undergraduate students? I'm guessing the LA Times' Gallagher doesn't have a clue about how well college newspapers currently serve their communities.
Eric,
I have to say that I disagree with your characterization about my comments regarding college publisher. As well as the idea that my "generalizations" about many college web sites means that there are *no* web sites who are making money on the web. You can do a search through our archives to find that I've been quite even-handed in my comments about their service, as well as some of its weaknesses.
You mention "a small number of college newspaper web sites are now earning significant revenue from local ad sales on their web sites." The key word there is "small." I have no way of knowing, because unless you belong to the WAUPM, most of those financial numbers are tightly held secrets. Care to share yours? I'd like to know what's "significant" in terms of percentage of your total income. Industry leaders make less than 20 percent (if that) of their revenue online. I'd be amazed if you are doing better than that.
But from our survey results over the last two years, less than half of respondents even had local advertising on their sites – period.
I certainly did not place all of the blame at the feet of college publisher. But I think it's likely a contributing factor.
I would maintain my statement about outsourcing the web site. Having a resource like college publisher – as good as it is for newspapers that are trying to get online – also can foster an attitude of "we don't have to sell online ads – there are already national ads there, and the site is running."
Brian,
I'm puzzled. I didn't say you generalized, nor that no web sites are making money. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, because I didn't write that.
You also seem to be challenging my comment that "a small number of college newspaper web sites are now earning significant revenue from local ad sales on their web sites." You say the key word is "small" — and I agree! That was my point, made in the next five words: "But most college papers aren’t."
You say revenue numbers are "tightly held secrets." I find college papers pretty readily share revenue information with each other on the CNBAM listserv when someone asks a question. "Care to share yours?" you wrote. Sure. Our online advertising revenue last year was about 2% of our total advertising revenue of slightly more than $1 million. "I’d like to know what’s 'significant' in terms of percentage of your total income," you wrote. I didn't suggest that *my* paper was earning significant revenue online; I certainly wouldn't characterize our 2% as "significant" — but there *are* a small number of college papers whose revenues are higher in both dollars and percentage.
Anyway, I'm not sure what that has to do with the point of my comment: most college papers earn a significant majority of their print ad revenue from local and campus advertising, not national. So giving/trading away online national revenue to College Publisher isn't preventing college papers "from realizing any sizable income" from their web sites, as you wrote. Even though College Publisher gobbles up some prime screen real estate for their national ads, there are significant opportunities for papers to earn local revenue from their sites. If papers aren't selling local ads, I don't think it's because of College Publisher.
Brian, I think you and I actually agree that college media web sites need lots of changes, lots of innovation, lots of promotion, lots of growth. Because of what I believe are pretty low traffic levels, and even smaller numbers of college students who use our web sites regularly, for most of us, our web sites simply aren't as effective a vehicle for advertisers to reach students as the printed newspaper. College Publisher isn't the reason why, and isn't holding back that progress from happening. (Actually, if we were wildly successful at building up our web sites and students' use of them, and if our web sites began to rival or surpass the printed edition as a vehicle for advertising, *then* I believe the current College Publisher model would become a significant constraining issue — but that's a subject for another day!)