Measuring editorial output

WAN 20032

70Figure 2: Percent reading every day6050Readers403019701980199020002010YearWAN 20034

9080Max EVERY-DAY READERS706050403020101972 1977 1982 1985 1987 1989 1991 1994 19981975 1978 1983 1986 1988 1990 1993 1996 2000Birth cohortGreatestGood TimesBoomersGeneration XYEAR OF SURVEYWAN 20035

Yikes!We need a new business plan.WAN 20036

Theodore Levitt, “Marketing Myopia,”Harvard Business Review, 1960Railroads lost out because they thoughtthey were in the railroad business.In reality, they were in the transportationbusiness.WAN 20037

When confronting disruptivetechnology, we must first ask:What business are we in?WAN 20038

The newspaper business?The information business?Selling eyeballs to advertisers?WAN 20039

WAN 200310

WAN 200311

TheInfluenceBusinessWAN 200312

1.00Penetration robustness 1995-2000.99.98.97.96.9514Muscogee BrownGrand ForksFayettePhiladelphiaCentreSummitHarrisonManateeRamseySanta ClaraBrowardSedgwickRichlandLeon16 18 20 22 24 26 2830CredibilityWAN 200313

What kind ofnewspaper cansurvive withoutinfluence?WAN 200314

WAN 200315

What kind of advertiserwants to be in a lowinfluencenewspaper?WAN 200316

WAN 200317

WAN 200318

Old: the journalist as huntergathererNew: the journalist as processorWAN 200319

Farming v. ProcessingConstant 2001 dollars (billions)1801601401201008060402001947 2001FarmingProcessingWAN 200320

… a wealth of informationcreates a poverty of attention …Herbert A. Simon, 1971To allocate attention efficientlyrequires processing.-Philip Meyer, 2003WAN 200321

1. Radical format newspapers2. Narrowly targeted media3. Online information services4. Cheaper newspapersWAN 200322

WAN 200323

Let me count the ways …Smaller web sizeShrinking news holeLess skilled journalistsFewer opportunities for trainingGreater staff turnoverWAN 200324

QUALITYCHEAPWAN 200325

Some elements of quality• Ease of use• Accuracy• Localism• Interpretation• Editorial vigor• Quantity of newsWAN 200326

Twenty percent of the adultpopulation, or 30 millionpeople, have seriousdifficulties with commonreading tasks.--Reading Research QuarterlyWAN 200327

Informal readability standards• Write for a 12-year-old child.• Write for the Omaha milkman.• Write for people who move their lipswhen they read.• Write for the Sweeneys and theStuyvesants will understand.WAN 200328

The Flesch Formula• Based on sentence length and averagesyllables per word• Renormed in 1973 by J. Peter Kincaid• Can be expressed as a grade level(USA)WAN 200329

Some sample scores• New England Journal of Medicine: 13.9• Kennedy’s inaugural address: 10.3• Faulkner’s Nobel speech: 8.8• Patrick Henry, “liberty or death:” 6.6WAN 200330

Sample of 40 newspapers• Most readable fourth: Grades 4 - 8.1• Second most readable: Grades 8.2 – 9.5.• Third most readable: Grades 9.5 – 10.7• Least readable: Grades 10.8 – 13.9WAN 200331

Grand Forks Herald: 5.5A few combines were rolling in Walsh Countyfields this week, but it is tough going, said CraigAskim, Walsh County extension agent.“They're not getting it all; they're just getting thespots they can,” he said Tuesday. “I saw combinesstuck in the field yesterday.”WAN 200332

Houston Chronicle: 12The chronically congested freeway now hasone reversible high-occupancy vehicle lane,three regular lanes in each direction and twotwo-lane frontage roads, making 11 throughlanes in all, plus entrance and exit lanes atintersections.WAN 200333

Readability StretchDeep (More than 1.8 grade levels belowmean)Penetration = 45%Shallow (Less than 1.8 levels belowmean)Penetration = 37%WAN 200334

Meyer’s LawStrive for readability four grades belowthe mean educational attainment inyour community.(Mean education in the USA is a bitover 12 years.) Therefore, the averagenewspaper should be written at 8 thgrade level.WAN 200335

Counter argumentWAN 200336

A newspaper that concentrateson elite readers should getmore per 1,000 for advertising.It doesn’t!WAN 200337

The more a newspaperstretches its readability to reachfor a broad audience, the more itgets (per thousand readers) forits advertising.So much for the class theoryWAN 200338

AccuracyPercent of stories• Objective errors 20%• Math errors 18• Subjective errors 53• Any error 59WAN 200339

3028AberdeenGrand Forks26Columbus24Population credibility22201816DuluthLexingtonSan JoseColumbiaPalm Beach WichitaSt. Paul CharlottePhiladelphia AkronTallahasseeBoulder144.84.95.05.15.25.35.45.55.6Source credibilityWAN 200340

AccuracySourcecredibilityCirculationrobustnessPopulationcredibilityWAN 200341

Porter’s defensive strategies• 1. Find new uses unaffected by thesubstitute.• 2. Redirect strategy toward leastvulnerable segments.• 3. Enter the substitute industry.• 4. Don’t defend. Harvest.WAN 200342

When to harvest your market position• 1. Low barriers to entry• 2. Little opportunity to create barriers• 3. Likely entrants with more resources• 4. Bad competitorsWAN 200343

How to harvest your market• 1. Raise pricesposition• 2. Reduce quality• 3. Take the money and runWAN 200344

Alternatives toharvesting• Make the paper easy to read and use• Cross reference paper and web site• Use the web to go after new business• Cultivate trustWAN 200345

WAN 200346

Upstream (intellectual property)Downstream (physical production)WAN 200347

The new bottleneck is upstream1. Star power2. Credibility3. Community involvementWAN 200348

Don’t: harvest.Do: Invest in your owninfluenceWAN 200349

The sweet spotThe sweet spotThe sweet spotProfitQualityWAN 200350

The single biggest pitfall indefense is a narrow concernwith short-term profitability,which conflicts with the realitythat defense requiresinvestment.--Michael E. PorterWAN 200351

Do not go gentle into that goodnight. Rage, rage against thedying of the light.--Dylan ThomasWAN 200352