Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in In defence of newspapers and serendipity

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

ampressman — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 08:29:58 -0000

Matthew, can't we replace the serendipity of newspapers with the great online curators who go out of their way to find all manner of items, some topical, some timeless, and aggregate them in a less automated manner? Kottke.org is the best example I can think of but there are many others. I have to say that the stuff I encounter on Jason's site is just as wonderful a mix of enjoyable stuff I would never have sought out as what I read in my print copy of the New York Times.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

jlo0312 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:13:13 -0000

What I’ve found working in the advertising industry is that newspapers have been on the decline for the past 10 years (that I’ve been in the business). Other sources, like the SRDS Circulation (Circulation 2009®, the printed version) shows that over the past twenty years, since the 1980s, that newspaper circulations have been in a downward spiral. The only reason that I know this is because at a former agency, we kept all of the books that SRDS published because it was not a feature available with an online SRDS subscription. Thus, the logic (above) is fatally flawed in that 89% of several MILLION readers is a much more significant number than 89% of one million, (or several hundred thousand) readers.

Even if aggregators aren’t perfect yet, they can be augmented by the online sites CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, etc, and local sites as well for the human interest stories that readers desire. For instance, I can set up iGoogle to feed me the aggregators and the news sites of my choosing. Plus, with Twitter on iGoogle, I can also follow these sites for up-to-the-minute breaking news, plus add in local sites for the "human flavor" I desire.

While the large metro and national papers have been in decline, my unscientific (and unmeasured) small-town newspapers have actually started to gain subscriptions as well as online readership. To me, this points to a trend that supports localized news (in a big city, maybe neighborhood sites, or sites for certain zip codes, rather than online or print subscriptions to the Chicago Sun-Times or the NYTimes. While readers want to be informed of global events, they also want to know about things in their respective living areas; crime rates, building permits, candidates for Alderman or City Councilman, restaurant reviews, etc. Sites such as Chicago’s Everyblock.com reviews crime statistics, permits, home sales, restaurant inspections, new business openings, business permits, housing permits, and even local events. (There is a drawback to EveryBlock: their main news feed often comes from the Sun-Times or the Tribune, but I believe they are working to move away from reprinting stories from the local papers—both of which are currently in bankruptcy).

I’m not trying to be critical; rather, I am providing a point of view from someone that works with clients that have, for as long as I’ve been in advertising, been steering their money away from the papers. Part of it has to do with the outrageous cost (comparatively) newspapers charge for both print and online services, declining circulations, and honestly, years of poor service from most of the nation’s metro papers. For years the newspaper conglomerates sat in the cat bird seat and were unwilling to negotiate costs (other than volume discounts) while TV, Radio, Online, and Out-of-Home providers dictated their sales by how the advertising market fared. The other reason that previous clients (car dealerships especially) have moved away from the papers is poor reproduction quality, even when in color. Thus, in a karma-like turn of events, newspapers are now reaping what they sowed.

Additionally, newspapers (print) and now online are extremely cluttered with advertisers and they’re either unwilling, or unable, to provide separation between competitors (like hospitals) from one another. Online papers don't supply special sections like the print versions, and the special sections were only instituted to help boost circulation.

There was a crucial juncture in newspaper history where the papers had a choice of going one of two ways: providing straight news, or adding in special sections to help boost sales. To make a long story short, the special sections weren't able to help circulation numbers. The newspapers simply did not listen to what their readers wanted: News.

So, that’s my .02 cents. Hope that it made sense and provides some perspective.

Thanks for making me use my brain!

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

KP Frahm — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:32:38 -0000

Here's what Bill Keller says about the serendipity of digital NYT:

"The conventional gripe print-lovers make about online news is the lack of serendipity. But, of course, the website and various apps offer alternative forms of serendipity — the most e-mailed list, recommendations from people in my TimesPeople universe, tweets from fellow readers. All of those alert me to interesting work I might not have gone looking for on my own."

http://www.niemanlab.org/20...

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:43:44 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham 'Serendipity' - the faculty of making happy & unexpected discoveries by accident.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:42:45 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham Do the smart people you follow reward your loyalty by surprising you or by delivering a predictable experience?

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

RuudHein (Ruud Hein) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:41:44 -0000

Twitter Comment

@MarkDykeman I believe in good newspapers (LA Times, NY Times, Parool, etc) but doubt that the medium of paper is one that will stick

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

gmarkham (Mark_Hamilton) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:37:47 -0000

Twitter Comment

@billdinTO Serendipity comes with the flow, because I follow such smart people:-)

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

KP Frahm — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 07:22:42 -0000

Eclecticism or "serendipity defence" a unique value of newspapers? I stumble upon so many intersting things on the web, and there so many curating blogs worth subscribing to ... The only USP a printed newspaper has is the paper it is printed on, and this is something I really like from time to time, especially on week-ends and vacations. But that's about it ...

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:39:47 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham Ah, but you choose who to folo on FB, Tw, RSS, so is it truly serendipity? :) ...

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:38:48 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham It's like saying, I don't want the G&M when Joe X or Selma Y were the news editors. I don't like their judgment. :)

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

gmarkham (Mark_Hamilton) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:37:57 -0000

Twitter Comment

@billdinTO Search is big, but I "scan" FB, Twitter, my RSS feeds, etc.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 04:37:51 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham Online's a search, not a scanning medium. But a good serendipity tool for me is NYT.com's 'most-emailed.'

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

gmarkham (Mark_Hamilton) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:41:49 -0000

Twitter Comment

@billdinTO I think scanning will turn uo the serendipity, too. Which, of course, is a potential strength of the web.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:39:50 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham You only get serendipity from a paper if you read the whole thing. Many don't. That behaviour is magnified online.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

selfmadepsyche (Megan Taylor) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:38:51 -0000

Twitter Comment

@madshrew I agree. But maybe that's just us web-savvy new junkies?

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

madshrew (Andrew Stanfill) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:40:51 -0000

Twitter Comment

@selfmadepsyche Oh, I'm not defending McKeen, I actually had a problem with it when he mentioned it my freshman year.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

madshrew (Andrew Stanfill) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:39:51 -0000

Twitter Comment

@selfmadepsyche You find so much more on the internet than in the papers.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

gmarkham (Mark_Hamilton) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:38:52 -0000

Twitter Comment

@billdinTO there is that. readers more likely to see it as "variety"

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

billdinTO (Bill Doskoch) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:55:52 -0000

Twitter Comment

@gmarkham Unfortunately, we also must ask ourselves whether serendipity matters much to news consumers.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

selfmadepsyche (Megan Taylor) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:54:52 -0000

Twitter Comment

@madshrew I know. But, given 500 RSS subs and 600 Twitter follows, how many more articles am I stumbling across that I wouldn't have seen?

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

NYT_JenPreston (Jennifer Prest — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:50:52 -0000

Twitter Comment

@RobinJP : We try, but honestly, you miss things if you don't look at both print and digital editions. So much in both places.

- Posted using Chat Catcher

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

Evan Kruse — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:59:10 -0000

Mr. Buttry, I think the difference of serendipity in print and serendipity in digital is an important one, and it goes back to the 'editorial' function of news organizations.

When I have serendipitous consumption of satisfying news in traditional news product, whether dead wood or online, it is because the editorial staff decided it was important for people to know. Hey, there's limited time or space or resources to print/produce, one must pick the best stuff only.

When I have satisfying serendipitous consumption of news via Twitter, Facebook or other social media, there are oftentimes new relationships involved, or are happening because of the relationships I've decided to have online. I see an interesting link from Friend A, who saw it on a publication that's completely new to me, and my social world has expanded. I comment on something that's interesting to me and I meed a new contact online. The online version, by nature, is captivating and rewarding with new experiences, new opportunities, etc. Print just can't do that for me. Even the perfect print experience can't do that for me.

So, one serendipity (print) might be in itself fulfilling, but the other serendipity (online) will lead to another, and another, and another...

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

Evan Kruse — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:52:33 -0000

Unless you're getting paid while you research, write, tweet, post... whatever... news consumption is just another form of entertainment. People want their time soaked up in a way that solves a problem or makes them feel good. Newspapers are capable of doing that, just as are newspaper Web sites and many other entertainment outlets. So many news die-hards cringe at the thought of this because it means that online news and traditional rags are up against Entertainment Tonight for peoples' attention. There is only so much entertainment consumption possible in the world, we all need to be competing for it. Sure, few forms of entertainment serve vital functions under our constitution, but that's what makes the existence of good news organizations that much more important.

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

Chip Oglesby — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:16 -0000

I'm interested, Daniel. What kind of data would you collect?

Re: In defence of newspapers and serendipity

Daniel Bachhuber — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:43:39 -0000

Two links. Let's get started :)