Tag: media business

Cutbacks come to NPR

Like a number of media observers, I’m bullish about National Public Radio because (a) its distribution model — reaching people who are stuck in their cars — still works and (b) its nonprofit funding system removes many of the pressures facing for-profit media corporations.

Note that these are organic advantages, having nothing to do with the excellence of its content. Although it’s pretty damn good.

But even non-profits need to make money. So it was inevitable that NPR would suffer cutbacks due to the economic downturn. According to Paul Farhi of the Washington Post, “Day to Day” has been axed, as has “News & Notes,” a program I’m not familiar with that was aimed at African-American audiences. A number of journalists have been laid off as well.

Much as I don’t like to see people lose their jobs, it strikes me that there may have been a little bit of mission creep — or mission bloat — going on here. By far the majority of NPR listeners tune in during drive time, which makes “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” among the most-listened-to radio programs in the country.

As long as those franchises are safe, I’m not too concerned.

Locally, it’s end-of-the-year fundraising time at WBUR (90.9 FM), as I’m sure you’ve noticed. Let’s hope enough money rolls in so that its own franchise shows, “On Point,” “Here and Now” and “Radio Boston,” are able to thrive.

The dynamic duo behind Tribune’s fall

There may not be a healthy newspaper company in the United States right now. Even so, the dynamic duo running the now-bankrupt Tribune Co. — real-estate mogul Sam Zell and radio consultant Lee Abrams — seem to have done everything they could to make things worse. At least that’s what I argue in my latest for the Guardian.

Look out below

For the newspaper business, it suddenly feels like September, when huge chunks of the financial services industry collapsed after many months of teetering on the brink.

Since this morning, bankruptcy for Tribune Co. has moved from theory to reality. The New York Times Co. is borrowing against the ill-timed monument the Sulzbergers built to themselves several years ago.

And a post I wrote this morning already seems out of date.

You have the sense right now that anything is possible. Anything bad, that is.

Boston is still a newspaper town

The latest news about the newspaper business is of the sort that no one ever thought we’d see. Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, may seek bankrupcty protection. McClatchy has put the Miami Herald up for sale, but no one wants it.

So I thought this would be a good time to pause for a moment and ponder something that we all take for granted around here. How is it that the Boston Globe continues as one of our great daily newspapers? How can our number-two daily, the Boston Herald, keep chugging along in this environment?

First the Globe. The paper and its corporate parent, the New York Times Co., are in dire straits. The Globe may be losing as much as $1 million a week, and company executives are now on a salary-cutting binge. International and national coverage has been largely ceded to the Times and the wire services. And yet this may be the only city in the country other than New York or Washington where our major daily newspaper isn’t the subject of daily, heated rumors about its imminent demise.

No doubt the Times Co. is a more benevolent owner than Sam Zell, the foul-mouthed real-estate tycoon who runs Tribune. But maybe things aren’t as bad at the Globe as they are at most other papers because Boston remains, fundamentally, a newspaper town. Yes, print circulation is way down, but the Globe’s Web site, Boston.com, is thriving (though its ad revenues don’t come anywhere near offsetting print losses).

Surely there’s no explanation but Boston’s special relationship with newspapers to explain the continued existence of the Herald. For several decades, the tabloid has survived as one of the very few number-two dailies in the country. The Herald has gotten awfully small. Earlier this fall, the paper started jobbing out its printing to the Wall Street Journal, which now trucks the paper in from its plant in Chicopee each day. (As with the Globe, the Herald’s Web site is doing quite well.)

Last week, Herald publisher Pat Purcell went back to work for his old boss, Murdoch, who owns the Journal and everything else.

Few people other than Purcell know what the true financial condition of the Herald is, though it’s believed to be right on the edge. And few know what Purcell’s real motivation was in agreeing to run Purcell’s Ottaway community-newspaper division. But it’s possible that it was about finding efficiencies that will shore up the Herald’s position.

This is such a difficult moment for the news business that it would be ridiculous to make any predictions. A month from now — a week from now — these observations might seem pollyannaish and naive.

For the moment, though, with the exception of New York and Washington, there’s no better place in the country to be a newspaper reader.

Thoughts on the Globe’s Newton project

The battle between the Boston Globe and GateHouse Media over the Globe’s hyperlocal Newton site isn’t really about the possibility that the Globe will grab more content from the Newton Tab than fair use — or fair play — should allow.

Rather, it’s over a more fundamental issue that will likely be a key to survival as struggling news organizations seek to reinvent themselves: Who will control the virtual front door to Newton, as well as to other cities and towns?

At first glance, Boston.com Newton strikes me as attractive, well-organized and generous. By generous, I mean the blog-like feature that fills the center well is a nice mix of content from the Globe, the Tab and local blogs. Just as important, the items give you just a bare taste of the story — if you have any interest at all, you’ll click through. So it seems likely that Boston.com will drive some traffic to the Tab, not to mention the blogs.

By combining content from different sources so seamlessly, Boston.com, at least for the moment, has leapfrogged ahead of the Tab’s Wicked Local Newton site. GateHouse’s Wicked Local sites, which debuted in Plymouth a few years ago, before there even was a GateHouse, were supposed to combine content from the local GateHouse paper with blogs and citizen journalism in order to be a one-stop community guide. That never quite panned out, although Wicked Local is stronger in some towns than in others.

Probably the least generous item on Boston.com Newton right now involves my friends at the Boston Phoenix. There’s a big photo of a plate of food, along with a headline that says, “Foodies: Phoenix reviews Hotel Indigo.” Follow the link, though, and you find a Globe blog item that summarizes the Phoenix review. You have to click again to get to the actual Phoenix review.

There’s a lot more to Boston.com Newton than the news blog. Readers can contribute to a wiki, discuss issues and send in photos. There’s a calendar of events, real-estate listings and local school data.

At the moment, at least, there is no RSS feed. That may change, though the site strikes me as ill-suited to reading via RSS, as it consists of many little items that require you to go off-site if you want to learn more. (Boston.com’s director of community publishing, Teresa Hanafin, makes exactly that point in a comment to the Garden City blog. And don’t miss GateHouse editor Greg Reibman’s hilarious retort.)

The Globe and GateHouse face different challenges.

The Globe, like all big regional papers, is caught in a squeeze. People who are interested mainly in national and international news are now getting it elsewhere, online. And though it’s often said that local is the future, it’s difficult for a big paper that covers all of Eastern Massachusetts to become local enough. Boston.com Newton, which is clearly intended as a prototype (note the “yourtown” in the URL), is an interesting way of overcoming the disadvantage of being a regional paper — and of attracting local advertisers who could never afford to buy space in the paper.

GateHouse, which publishes about 100 papers in Eastern Massachusetts, is all about local, so it doesn’t have to reorient its mission. But its natural advantage in print doesn’t necessarily hold up online, because players as large as the Globe and as small as a few passionate activists can play on the same turf.

What’s going on in Newton will tell us a lot about the future of the newspaper business over the next few years. I hope both sides find a way to win.

Boston.com versus GateHouse redux

Boston.com’s Newton site debuted today. I’ll try to offer at least a quick assessment tomorrow. At first glance, it strikes me as an attractive mix of content from the Boston Globe, GateHouse Media’s Newton Tab, the Boston Phoenix and local bloggers.

Meanwhile, take a look at this video, posted on Boston.com’s Green Blog. Be sure to watch the closing credits. Pretty aggressive, don’t you think?

More: It’s only fair to point out it’s virtually impossible to learn that the video is from the GateHouse’s Belmont Citizen-Herald unless you watch all the way to the end. Even if you go directly to the YouTube site, you’ll find nothing unless you click on “more info.” And even then, it’s pretty cryptic.

So I can believe it’s an innocent mistake — but one that should be corrected soon.

Still more: Now fixed — see fourth paragraph.

Waiting for Boston.com’s Newton site

It’s a little after 11:30 a.m. So I guess we can now officially say that the Boston Globe has delayed the unveiling of its hyperlocal Newton site, the subject of much speculation and angst this week.

I would imagine the delay is due to some tech snafu, though it’s possible it’s being retooled in response to the concerns raised by GateHouse Media, owner of the Newton Tab.

Though I’ve been among those who’ve been wondering if the Globe’s plans might unfairly make use of the Tab’s content, I also expect that the Globe folks are smart enough not to go too far. If there’s a blog on the Globe site that links to some Tab content, well, you can’t stop the Globe from blogging. Nor should you.

If the Globe refrains from linking to every story in the Tab; and if, when it does, it does so in such a way that you feel as though you need to click on through, then everyone should be happy.

Update: Media Nation reader G.R. tells me that the the site now says the Newton page will debut on Monday.

Globe losing nearly $1m a week?

That’s what Boston Globe executives have been telling union members, according to this story by Boston Business Journal reporter Craig Douglas. That number comes from the summer, before the paper reorganized its sections and saved itself some money. On the other hand, the economy is much worse now than it was then.

As for the possibility that the Globe will soon be sold, Douglas offers this:

“Who wants to catch a falling safe?” said a source familiar with the Globe’s financials. “Nobody’s going to fund a $50 million hole in the ground.”

A falling safe with no money in it, apparently.

Bad as things may be, so far the New York Times Co. has spared Boston the chaos that has rocked other large regional papers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. At some point, though, something’s got to give. (Via Universal Hub.)

A brewing media battle in Newton

A potential battle is shaping up over the Boston Globe’s plans to start a hyperlocal Newton site on Boston.com that could feature, among other things, content from the weekly Newton Tab.

“This is just the latest move from the 800-pound gorilla in the market, which is currently weighing in at 200 pounds,” GateHouse Media New England publisher Kirk Davis tells Amy Derjue at Boston Daily. GateHouse, a national chain based in suburban Rochester, N.Y., owns about 100 newspapers in Eastern Massachusetts, including the Tab.

Davis adds: “We’re not surprised the Globe would like to play in our sandbox.”

Although it’s not entirely clear what the Globe’s got planned for Newton, a report by Chuck Tanowitz suggests that the paper will display headlines and summaries from Newton blogs and from the Tab.

It’s possible that the Globe will make everyone a winner by driving traffic to those sites. But it’s also possible that, for some stories, the headline and summary is all most people are looking for, which means they’ll stay at Boston.com. The stakes are high: both the Globe and GateHouse are trying to sell advertising on their local Web sites.

Depending on how the Globe proceeds, it could find itself facing copyright-infringement issues on two grounds:

  • GateHouse publishes its online content under a Creative Commons license, which allows other Web sites to republish stories as they see fit — a boon to bloggers. But GateHouse’s license specifically prohibits commercial use, which would seem to rule out the Globe.
  • Copyright law allows anyone to publish small snippets of someone’s content under the doctrine of fair use. A good example of that would be Google News. But the Globe might find itself challenged on the grounds that though it’s only taking a little bit, it’s nevertheless taking the most important and marketable part.

When I wrote about this over the weekend, GateHouse’s director of digital publishing, Howard Owens, posted a comment in which he said, “I think we need to have a little chat with Bob Kempf.” Kempf, now a top executive with Boston.com, was a key player in developing GateHouse’s Wicked Local sites.

While the GateHouse folks appear to be gearing up for battle, we haven’t heard much from Boston.com. On Sunday the Globe’s regional editor, David Dahl, sent an e-mail to let me know the Globe would be making an official announcement later this week. I told him I’d welcome comments from him and other Globe executives. So far, though, they’re maintaining their silence.

For those of us who care about local journalism, it’s painful to watch two financially challenged giants battling over a shrinking advertising base. On Monday the Globe’s parent company, the New York Times Co., reported that the value of its New England holdings continues to plummet. GateHouse was recently delisted by the New York Stock Exchange, although its revenues appear to be holding up reasonably well.

It’s possible that once the Globe announces its plans, we’ll see that this is much ado about nothing. But this bears watching.

Photo of Newton City Hall and the Newton Free Library (cc) by the Newton Free Library and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Boston.com’s hyperlocal experiment

Chuck Tanowitz reports that the Boston Globe’s Boston.com affiliate is about to unveil a series of hyperlocal Web sites, including one for Newton.

The Globe doesn’t intend to provide any original content. Rather, each hyperlocal site will serve as a guide to existing material. In the case of Newton, that means, among other things, stories from GateHouse Media’s Newton Tab.

This strikes me as hyperlocal journalism on the ultracheap. I understand the purpose: to come up with a more affordable advertising platform for local businesses. And I understand that the Globe is hurting financially; Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix detailed the latest round of cuts on Thursday.

But think of the value that Boston.com could add by hiring a mobile journalist to cover three or four towns, uploading blog posts, photos and videos throughout the day.

Tanowitz notes that there may be an intellectual-property issue that needs to be resolved, too. Indeed. Yes, the Globe could drive traffic to the Tab by publishing a headline, a summary and a link. But what if that’s all some readers are looking for, so they never follow the link? GateHouse publishes its content online under a Creative Commons license that allows for noncommercial re-use. But that certainly wouldn’t cover the Globe.

Financially challenged news organizations are exploring new ways to survive. My own sense is the ones that will pay off are those that aren’t solely about making money, but that provide a real service for readers as well. At least based on Tanowitz’s account, this sounds rather more cynical than that. But we’ll see. (Via Universal Hub.)