Every so often, media observers berate the newspaper business for letting upstarts encroach on their turf rather than innovating themselves.
Weirdly enough, I’ve heard a number of people over the years assert that newspapers should have unveiled a free classified-ad service in order to forestall the rise of Craigslist — as if giving away classified ads was going to help pay for journalism. As of 2019, Craigslist employed a reported 50 full-time people worldwide. The Boston Globe and its related media properties, Stat News and Boston.com employ about 300 full-time journalists. As they say, do the math.
Sometimes you hear the same thing about Facebook, which is different enough from journalism that you might as well say that newspapers should have moved into the food-services industry. Don Graham’s legendary decision to let Mark Zuckerberg walk away from an agreed-upon investment in Facebook changed the course of newspaper history — the Graham family could have kept The Washington Post rather than having to sell to Jeff Bezos. As a bonus, someone with a conscience would have sat on Facebook’s board, although it’s hard to know whether that would have mattered. But journalism and social media are fundamentally different businesses, so it’s not as though there was any sort of natural fit.
More recently, I’ve heard the same thing about Nextdoor, a community-oriented social network that has emerged as the news source of record for reporting lost cats and suspicious-looking people in your neighborhood. I like our Nextdoor and visit it regularly. But when it comes to discussion of local news, I find it less useful than a few of our Facebook groups. Still, you hear critics complain that newspapers should have been there first.
Become a member of Media Nation
Well, maybe they should have. But how good a business is it, really? Like Craigslist, social media thrives by having as few employees as possible. Journalism is labor-intensive. Over the years I’ve watched the original vision for Wicked Local — unveiled, if I’m remembering correctly, by the Old Colony Memorial in Plymouth — shrink from a genuinely interesting collection of local blogs and other community content into a collection of crappy websites for GateHouse Media’s and now Gannett’s newspapers.
The original Boston.com was a vibrant experiment as well, with community blogs and all sorts of interesting content that you wouldn’t find in the Globe. But after the Globe moved to its own paywalled website, Boston.com’s appeal was pretty much shot, although it continues to limp along. For someone who wants a free regional news source, it’s actually not that bad. But the message, as with Wicked Local, is that maybe community content just doesn’t produce enough revenue to support the journalists we need to produce actual news coverage.
Recently Will Oremus of a Medium-backed website called OneZero wrote a lengthy piece about the rise of Nextdoor, which has done especially well in the pandemic. Oremus’ take was admirably balanced — though Nextdoor can be a valuable resource, especially in communities lacking real news coverage, he wrote, it is also opaque in its operations and tilted toward the interests of its presumably affluent users. According to Oremus, Nextdoor sites are available in about 268,000 neighborhoods across the world, and its owners have considered taking the company public.
There’s no question that Nextdoor is taking on the role once played by local newspapers. But is that because people are moving to Nextdoor or because local newspapers are withering away? As Oremus writes, quoting Emily Bell:
In some ways, Nextdoor is filling a gap left by a dearth of local news outlets. “In discussions of how people are finding out about local news, Nextdoor and Facebook Groups are the two online platforms that crop up most in our research,” said Columbia’s Emily Bell. Bell is helping to lead a project examining the crisis in local news and the landscape that’s emerging in its wake.
“When we were scoping out, ‘What does a news desert look like?’ it was clear that there’s often a whole group of hyperlocal platforms that we don’t traditionally consider to be news,” Bell said. They included Nextdoor, Facebook Groups, local Reddit subs, and crime-focused apps such as Citizen and Amazon Ring’s Neighbors. In the absence of a traditional news outlet, “people do share news, they do comment on news,” she said. “But they’re doing it on a platform like Nextdoor that really is not designed for news — may be in the same way that Facebook is not designed for news.”
Look, I’m glad that Nextdoor is around. I’m glad that Patch is around, and in fact our local Patch occasionally publishes some original reporting. But there is no substitute for actual journalism — the hard work of sitting through local meetings, keeping an eye on the police and telling the story of the community. As inadequate as our local Gannett weekly is, there’s more local news in it than in any other source we have.
If local newspapers had developed Nextdoor and offered it as part of their journalism, would it have made a different to the bottom line? It seems unlikely — although it no doubt would have brought in somewhat more revenues than giving away free classifieds.
Nextdoor, like Facebook, makes money by offering low-cost ads and employing as few people as possible. It may add up to a lot of cash in the aggregate. At the local level, though, I suspect it adds up to very little — and, if pursued by newspapers, would distract from the hard work of coming up with genuinely sustainable business models.
6 thoughts on “There’s no reason to think that a Nextdoor-like service would have saved local news”
Craigslist had nothing or almost nothing to do with newspaper collapse, period. I published a study in Columbia Journalism Review 15 years ago that looked at actual aggregate classified and display advertising starting in 1993, and annual revenue per reader. The advent of Craigslist had zero impact. Zero. Craig Newmark and I were on a panel about this issue as well. When I talked about it in front of major news execs, they generally admitted it, too.
But they grabbed at a straw — newspapers raised their ad rates faster than inflation until 2006. Craigslist, they said, had destroyed their pricing power, their ability to do what colleges and health care continues to do — raise prices for ever.
No. They destroyed their own pricing power. As they consolidated into chains, national advertisers demanded hefty dollar volume ad discounts. That extended into auto dealerships who spend manufacturer-provided ad dollars. THAT led to consolidation of retailing into national chains, hollowing out the local DISPLAY advertising base.
Newspapers never adjusted. The industry organized itself into oblivion. And because the industry could easily spread propaganda absolving itself, it did just that.
So you have a revenue source that accounted for 40% of newspapers’ income, and along comes an easy-to-use service that gives away nearly all of what you used to charge for. And the free service had nothing to do with it? I certainly don’t see anything that’s factually wrong here: https://www.minnpost.com/business/2014/02/how-craigslist-killed-newspapers-golden-goose/
300 full time journalist??!
I don’t think so!!
Dan, daily newspapers had been giving free classified ads to one-time users in their reader base for years. Even shoppers did, and they had no subscriber revenue to fall back on. I’ll send you the data-heavy article I wrote for CJR. When I took a deep dive into Belo’s Owensboro KY Messinger/Enquirer (I was consulting for Belo’s whose bankers told them to sell it), they even allowed small freelance auto dealers to have free and very cheapo ads for occasional sales, and Craigslist was not in Owensboro. The paper was ringed by lousy Gannett dailies and weeklies but over 70% of all households in its readership area took the Belo paper — it actually had real news inside, from real reporters. Thus, its ad rates were more than double Gannett’s rates.
The big three categories for classifieds — jobs, real estate, and autos) — were well over 90% of classified revenue, and classified was well over half of all ad revenue (some display ads were and are historically counted as classified… go figure). All three categories suffered, more from the outlets for all of them organizing into national chains.
BTW, just before the dot.com bust in 2001, the Globe went into partnership with Monster.com on job classified. When the bust happened, Monster.com revenue nationwide went from $1.4 billion to $900 million. It fired its CEO. The NYT/Globe, in contrast, said the world was collapsing. But when there are more candidates than jobs, employers tend to focus on local hires. They still do. PAID national online job services now dominate the market because they figured out how to do local — but they are order-takers, not ad salespeople. Locals COULD compete Craigslist is a tiny player.
There is no profitable business model for online news if you’re not the Times, the Post or the Journal. Nextdoor certainly isn’t the solution. I’m on Nextdoor, and the content ratio runs about 25% information that could be useful to some people (as distinct from journalism) to 75% rumors and racism. Pretty sure the Constitution needs more than that to be defended.
My voluminous data says otherwise. Where is your data?
Comments are closed.