Could Twitter Have Saved The New York Times?

The newspaper industry is in big, big trouble. That should be obvious by now. But if it isn't, consider this: America's flagship newspaper, the New York Times, is considering selling its stake in the Boston Red Sox just to stay afloat in 2009.

The Atlantic magazine speculates that the New York Times could go out of business this May.

Whoops, did I prepay my subscription through 2010? To stay afloat that long, reliable sources say the newspaper may have to sell its profitable internet site, About.com.

It pains me to say this because I'm a newspaper brat, but the newspaper industry has nobody to blame but themselves. My 94-year-old grandmother was more receptive to new technology.

I vividly recall when America's #1 afternoon daily, the Detroit News, switched from typewriters to computers. Some wag put an inflatable man in the middle of the city room so reporters could punch it when they got frustrated by the new technology. It was fun to watch -- a perk I enjoyed as a little girl because my dad was City Editor -- but it also sent a message about their attitude toward computers, and foreshadowed a deep-seated distrust of the internet.

What if instead of despising the internet, newspapers had partnered years ago with Silicon Valley software geeks to develop a social networking technology like Twitter? Something (like Twitter) that allowed sellers to easily post online classified ads in 140 characters or less? Something (like Twitter) that allowed buyers and sellers to exchange information without revealing their personal email addresses? Odds are some guy named Craig wouldn't have cornered the market on classified advertising.

Imagine if this new technology (like Twitter) also turned out to be great for breaking news? Last month a Twitter user was on the Continental Airlines jet that skidded off a runway at Denver Airport. He fired off a "tweet" after safely exiting the plane: "Holy f**king s**t -- I was just in a plane crash!" Now that's immediacy.

The bell is tolling loudly for hard copy newspapers. The younger generation gets its news online. There's no way around that fact. I repeat: there's no way around that fact.

But even if the Times converts to a digital-only format, they need to figure out how to post ads that don't annoy readers. While we're thinking out of the box, what if instead of full-screen ads that pop up and block stories, they offered portals to products and services we actually want? For example, if the Huffington Post had a Little Black Dress Big Sales Page, I'd click on it daily because the perfect LBD has become my white whale. Unfortunately, the next time I read the Times online I'll get hit in the face with an ad for a lawn mower. What am I going to do with a lawn mower in downtown D.C.?

Newspapers have great capital: talented reporters with superb rolodexes. But if the bigshots at the top don't join the rest of us in the 21st century soon, those writers will be out of work, and you'll be getting most of your news from bloggers like me. I'm not convinced that's a good thing.

Comments

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

A New York Times writer just proposed his newspaper consider copying the iTunes model for news and charge for content (again!). How do I know? Pete Cashmore just sent me a Tweet from Scotland. (Just sayin'.)

Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/business/media/12carr.html?_r=2

[clm3870]

Yes, this article brings back memories of good ole Dad and hanging out in the smoky newsroom waiting for a ride home with him from my summer co-op job downtown. Good article big sis!

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the shout-out, "Rosebud." With all the smoke in that newsroom, it's lucky we're still alive.

[tompoe]

In the near future, we will be able to sign up to join virtual worlds, as easily as we sign up, today to join web sites. We then will be able to visit the NYT as if we lived across the street, talk directly to reporters, and travel with them on assignments. The NYT knows how valuable such subscriptions will be. The reason this future is not being touted, today, is corporate hope that they will be able to take control of the Internet, first. Problem is, there's so much industry fighting over turf, noone has been able to get control, yet. Will the public let them? We own the airwaves. We just might save our Internet, and create our own NYT, first. Now, that would be fun.

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

One of my fellow Twitteroos, Bram Larrick, just sent me this post: "Networked link journalism: A revolution quietly begins in Washington state." Read how four journalists working in different newsrooms collaborated on a breaking news story using a few Tweets and a bunch of links.

Just sayin'...

http://publishing2.com/2009/01/09/networked-link-journalism-a-revolution-quietly-begins-in-washington-state/

[LibbyLoon]

That's a pretty funny example of the old school "traditional media' not adapting to the times. Hindsight is a B****.

I run into my fair share of writers at events who are out work, recently laid off, reduced to part time and much more. They're bitter indeed, but they didn't evolve. It's not enough to be just a writer anymore. You have to make videos, podcasts, everything. Given how easy it is to do with new tech, there's no excuse not to.

But as for Twitter...I'm still not sold on it, and I'm not cool with this plane crash twitterer being made a hero, getting interviewed on CNN etc.. So chaos is ensuing, people are trying to get off the plane, people are hurt, old ladies need help, and this jerk is on his IPhone. That's nothing heroic, it's being a worthless DORK in the biggest sense of the word. He didn't tweet one thing interesting either. I could have probably guessed his "Holy crap" reaction. Big deal.

[John Tomasic - Huffpost Blogger]

Twitter is a metaphor, and a funny one, too. Point is the number of boats the newspaper guys have missed. (And they ARE still mostly all guys!) Seven years ago we ran a story in Business 2.0, a Bay Area-based national magazine, about how hardcopy classified ads were finished as a newspaper revenue stream. Last week I read a Bay Area newspaper editor's sad new year's column, basically an "it's tough but we're still trying" piece, in which he basically lets drop that 40 percent of the paper's revenue was still coming from... wait for it... classified ads! In 2009, his paper is still depending on classifieds -- this in the Bay Area, the hatchery of all things internet and home to Craig ('s list) Newmark! Hopeless.

[nah415]

I used to read the San Francisco Chronicle every morning and had it delivered for 30 years. I get up at 5 am and like the paper the first thing in the morning. Unfortunately the Chronicle's home delivery service lost sight of that and my paper would arrive whenever they felt like bringing it. The Sunday paper routinely arrived after 10am, long after I'd left the house for the day.

I called and wrote an endless number of letters trying to get my paper delivered early as it had always been. And all I received in return was silence. When I was able to talk to someone in person, they essentially told me that they didn't really care about this and that I would have to live with it.

I stopped my subscription and started reading the paper online. It was hard to get used to not having the actual paper in my hand, but the convenience of having access to the news early outweighed the pleasure of holding the paper in my hand. I have never looked back.

Now when I buy a Chronicle (a thin wisp of nothing for 75 cents), the news is old. I've seen it (usually on the HuffPo) days before the SF Chron gets it on the front page. They had the opportunity to take my needs and my concerns seriously and they failed to do so. I am no longer a fan. I get my news online and I like it that way.

[Diane Tucker - Huffpost Blogger]

The impudent William K. Wolfrum has a conspiracy theory about what went wrong for newspapers. Here's the link:

http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/01/09/throwing-red-meat-at-conspiracy-theorists-newspapers-vs-digital-media-edition/

Enjoy!

[SpaghettyIrish]

First step to saving hard copy newspapers in mid-size cities: Get rid of the world, national, and lifestyle sections; we have the internet for those, whatever source the customer prefers. By the time the morning comes, all of the world/national is more than 12-16 hours old. Second, expand the state and local sections; those are not something that you're going to find online in any real depth. The local section in my city is reduced to a front page, obits, and two pages of ads.

There needs to be more unique content. I can remember when I could sit with the local paper and spend an hour and a half reading stories I hadn't seen on tv. (this is pre-internet.) Now, articles I haven't been aware of for at least 10-12 hours already might take 10-15 minutes to go through. It's sad. I'm about 30 now, and have been reading papers since I was 8 years old. I guess that's rare, but an edition of my local paper worth 75¢ is even rarer.

[Citizen54]

I hope everyone who is cheering on the demise of the newspaper industry enjoys their hubris. Maybe I don't share the author's perspective... when I was a reporter at a two-bit daily, I worked with a guy who had helped institute an electronic editing system at one of the Gannett papers; this was at the end of the 1970s. A couple years later, I worked for a newspaper where we wrote and edited on an electronic system (Atex). No one whined (except when the system crashed at deadline time. We all could see the benefits, and there was no fear of technology.

As for Twitter being the savior of the newspaper biz, spare me. We have these things called telephones, whereby someone could call the paper and tip them off to a plane crash or whatever. Sure, Twitter could be useful in the news biz (except when Twitter feeds are being hacked, like at Mac Expo the other day), but to suggest that lack of Twitter or other software gadgets is the reason papers are failing is not accurate, imho.

Papers are failing because AD REVENUES are down, not because they don't have Web sites or don't know how to use Twitter. The Times has had a site since the 90s, for god's sake. But where's the money to be made? Revenue is the problem, and where's the technology solution to that?

[TargetedJobSites]

Is not this amazing? The Newspaper Executives do not seem to have the ability to see how money can be made from mega traffic. Wow. I am kinda proud to have been a part of the demise (for trees sake anyways). Dean Davis TargetedJobSites.com

[Citizen54]

Believe me, newspaper execs understand the importance of mega traffic. The problem is convincing advertisers that the traffic is worth their ad dollars. The NY Times has a lot of traffic coming to its site, but that doesn't translate into revenue. Newspapers run on ad revenue, not readership numbers. True, they haven't figured out how to replace the big hole in classified revenues caused by Craigslist, but I don't think anyone has figured that out.

A fascist government would share your joy in the demise of newspapers.

[larry278]

On the other hand, fascist nation or a changing nation such as mainland China might not like citizen journalists who use the web. I won't go on about the rings I wear on that other hand for HP has a 250 word limit on comments.
BTW, try looking at the local blute in a 1 paper town; they print things that can't be called news.