Strategy

Can we live without the print edition of the New York Times?

In the January/February 2009 Atlantic, Michael Hirschorn examines the real possibility that the New York Times may not survive the year—at least in print. Never mind how this will impact journalism. Hirschorn understands the real reason many of us are dreading the loss of the Times: “For those of us old enough to still care about going out on a Sunday morning for our doorstop edition of the Times, it will mean the end of a certain kind of civilized ritual that has defined most of our adult lives.”

Marshall McLuhan expressed this better than anyone else, when he said: “People don’t actually read newspapers. They step into them every morning like a hot bath.”

(That explains why so many magazines—New York magazine, for example—are allowing free access to their content online, without fear that this will cannibalize paid subscriptions to their print editions. Online and print deliver different experiences; they don’t compete with each other. And while the economic rationale for newspaper publishing is crumbling, no one is predicting the demise of magazines. But that’s another story).

When we get over the loss of the newspaper reading ritual, we’re left with the question: what does the death of print newspapers mean for journalism? Hirschorn is more optimistic than most, despite acknowledging that web advertising brings in just 20% of the revenue that print ads generate (which means newspapers will have to cut their staffs by 80%). He sees the web-only New York Times modeling itself after the successful Huffington Post, which he calls:

...the prototype for the future of journalism: a healthy dose of aggregation, a wide range of contributors, and a growing offering of original reporting. This combination has allowed the HuffPo to digest the news that matters most to its readers at minimal cost, while it focuses resources in the highest-impact areas. What the HuffPo does not have, at least not yet, is a roster of contributors who can set agendas, conduct in-depth investigations, or break high-level news. But the post-print Times still would.

The crux of Hirschorn’s argument is that the globalization of news makes it unnecessary for every city daily to maintain a large global network of reporters, which, in retrospect, will seem wildly redundant. The web gives everyone instant access to news sources from anywhere on the planet:

I recall avidly following the 2006 crisis in Lebanon through a variety of sources, none less interesting or credible because it was, say, Haaretz instead of The Times. Like neighboring hospitals coordinating their purchases of expensive MRI equipment, journalistic outlets will discover that the Web allows (okay, forces) them to concentrate on developing expertise in a narrower set of issues and interests, while helping journalists from other places and publications find new audiences.

The lesson for media companies? The trend towards de-massification that began in the sixties, when television killed Life and Look magazines, continues. Forget being all things to all people. Figure out what your niche is, and stay laser focused on it. Or die.