Category Archives: Business

#ijf11: Charles Lewis on the ‘interesting ecosystem’ of non-profit news

There are more than 50 non-profit journalism organisations operating today in the US, which leads the rest of the world in investigative journalism funded by private donations.

A sizable number of them – eight at last count – were founded by veteran US journalist Charles Lewis, including the Center for Public Integrity (CFPI), which has gone from his bedroom to having more than 40 staff and a budget of more than $8 million.

Lewis now runs the Investigative Reporting Workshop (IRW), which employs 14 staff, a third of which are students.

He said that the IRW was purposely “trying to mix the generations”, adding that having young people around vastly increases the organisation’s capacity to innovate.

Like the CFPI, the workshop also has a none-too-shabby budget of $2.2 million a year.

But speaking on an International Journalism Festival panel today on how small online news outlets can have an impact, Lewis said that millions of dollars and scores of staff were not a prerequsite for doing in-depth investigative work.

There is a non-profit in San-Diego that is doing this kind of work and they have two  people. They have done five impactful investigations.

One of the ways you do that is data. In San Diego they took the response times of ambulances in the city, and looked at how they differed over certain areas. This came from one dataset and one guy did it, over a few months.

Great journalism can be done by a few people.

Speaking to me after the session, Lewis said that with the rise of non-profits there was an “interesting ecosystem emerging” in US news.

Listen to more from Lewis on the future of that system and in the US and the future of the relationship of non-profits and traditional mainstream media:

Listen!

Sunday Sport founder expected to relaunch paper

The founder of the Sunday Sport is believed to be buying back the title, which went into administration on 4 April.

David Sullivan, who is joint chairman of West Ham United, launched the Sunday Sport in 1986, following with the Daily Sport in 1991.

He sold the two titles in 2007, for £40 million and is now believed to be buying back the Sunday paper for less that £1 million.

A former Sunday Sport editor told Journalism.co.uk Sullivan’s team spent some of yesterday looking for new offices for the Manchester-based title, which is expected to relaunch on 8 May.

Administrators for the Sport titles, BDO, told Journalism.co.uk no deal has been completed and they are “still talking to interested parties”.

It is thought the Daily Sport is not part of the deal.

If no buyer is found for the daily, it will be the first national daily to shut since Today closed in 1995.

Sullivan bailed out Sports Media Group, which owned the titles, in 2009, with a £1.6 million loan, but did not offer more money to save the titles earlier this month when the papers shut with the loss of all 80 jobs, administrators said.

A relaunched Sport would see Sullivan look to win back readers, who have been welcomed by Richard Desmond’s title the Daily Star Sunday since the Sunday Sport’s closure.

A message on the paper’s masthead using the Sport’s typeface has been used by the Daily Star Sunday for the past two weeks.

National Union of Journalists negotiator Lawrence Shaw said he “would welcome any newspaper start up” but warned the sale could still leave freelancers owed large amounts of money.

#media140 – Choice of multiple business models as traditional press ‘dies off’

Throughout media140 so far, when it has come to a discussion of business models for journalism, most speakers seem to be in agreement that there is no single solution, rather the path is multi-directional and a mix is best.

Yesterday Pat Kane discussed the main two pathways which appear to be being taken at the moment, the open web versus the paid content model, but he said a mixed model may be best.

Similarly Jay Rosen, when asked by Kane at the end of the professor’s keynote later in the day about revenues, also said there is no one single model.

At today’s first session, Ismael Nafria, director of digital contents at La Vanguardia, spoke along the same lines, although also indicated a commitment to a foundation of advertising in the press.

He said 90 per cent of income comes from advertising.

Despite this difficult situation, there is a business model for information, it is one that has existed for many decades now and is still possible.

Working in online information, after having tried and experimented on many occasions for me it is quite clear what the business model should be … in general terms information depends on advertising.

You have to have media open as possible reaching out to the widest audience as possible … we cannot all hope for the same rating, there are different battlefields, so to speak, so in your own niche you need to aspire to reach the highest-quality product so advertisers will invest.

On top of that – as advertising is the foundation upon which we should all organise our models – we need additional elements, such as payment or subscription.

This is not the solution, at least by itself, it is an additional element, revenue source, but we need to complement it with others.

He added for this to work, publishers need to fully understand the internet as a medium, and how it differs from other existing mediums.

There are all types of consequences of how you create information, how you reach out to audiences, what are the professional profiles that you need to offer that message to your audience.

If you don’t understand that many users come through browsers, so it is very important for browsers to find you, if you don’t understand the internet is a multimedia environment, so your content should not only be textual but have multimedia and interactive elements, this information fits better in the internet environment.

It’s the only way to have a competent product. As long as you are able to offer your internet product in the way that the internet demands it, it’s not a problem.

In order to achieve this content and commercial teams should be working “hand in hand” he added.

“They are part of the very business we’re working for. It’s not always the case and it’s not always easy. Whoever is neglecting it is making a big mistake,” he said.

I don’t believe that our job is coming to an end, its the opposite.

The more info available in the world the more necessary are these figures that can help us as citizens to process and digest all that information.

Similarly fellow speaker Carles Capdevila, who is director of daily title ARA, which offers a premium part of its content via a sign-up, while the rest of its content remains open online, said the title is in the process of looking for a multi-platform business model.

We are learning by doing, we created a business, we are trying to look for the right model and we’re doing that live, everyday.

We know the traditional press model is dying off and other models are popping up and we’re committed to choice. We aim for it to be sustainable, looking for different models at the same time.

He also went on to talk about the value of social media in the development of ARA’s business model and popularity. “We were created through the social media”, he said.

We explained every day who we were and what we wanted to do.

We began operating with a constant dialogue with users.

We’re so flexible as to modify what in the past was known as a market study, we have one every day … We are a newspaper that was created together with its users through social media, but it also goes through the newsagents, offers a supplement … I declare myself to be agnostic, or multi-agnostic to platforms.

I don’t let myself get carried away by anyone. We don’t believe in paper we just practice it. We practice our paper religion but its a temporary faith. We are believers in Facebook.

Online your market, your users, enter into a dialogue with you, so you have an opportunity to know what they’re thinking about. Is there any business for journalists online? Well I compare myself with doctors and teachers – thanks to internet and social media our customers wise up.

A doctor gives you medicine and you take it, maybe you were cured, maybe you died.

Now you go and say, ‘I think I have this because I looked it up on Google’. So are doctors going to disappear, no. We still go look for a doctor to make sure you’ve got it right. I need dialogue.

Huff Po bloggers take legal action for back pay

The Guardian today reports a group of unpaid bloggers for the Huffington Post, unhappy with the money being made from the $315 million sale of the site to AOL, have filed a $105 million lawsuit for back pay.

According to the Guardian the action is being led by Jonathan Tasini, a writer and trade unionist, quoted as complaining that “people who create content … have to be compensated” for their efforts.

Discussing the action with Journalism.co.uk’s senior reporter Rachel McAthy at #media140 today was Pat Kane, who also blogs on the Huffington Post. Speaking following his keynote speech at the event he said he was “very skeptical” about the action.

I never regarded the Huffington Post space as a commercial space.

I think what’s more interesting is the extent to which the blog community keeps an eye on the Huffington Post and sees that its leveraging its investment in the right way.

Is it becoming an even stronger platform for citizen involvement, for raising voices, for providing an alternative to the mainstream media or is it becoming absorbed by the mainstream media, are there subjects that it just won’t cover now?

So to me the question is more about monitoring them as an enabling enterprise … And the extent to which they fail or trip up on that is the extent to which you don’t participate.

One of the things about the internet is the exodus and not participating is often some of the most effective action that could possibly happen. The sense that something has lost its bloom on the internet … is a real caution to people.

But as I say if one hears stories of the editorial breadth and integrity of the operation being constrained then that’s the point at which I wouldn’t write for it.

I’d rather test it out and practice than actually go down a route that says I’m doing this because I expect a return.

You participate in these things because you want to be part of a community and you want the freedom to express and then you also want to be part of a big conversation you weren’t part of before.

The extent to which you make an earning part of your portfolio is a different question, I’m not as anxious about that.

paidContent: Government ends plans for free online content at main libraries

The Department of Culture Media and Sport has advised Journalism.co.uk of some inaccuracies in this article by PaidContent. We are awaiting clarification and will update this post shortly.

paidContent reports this week the government has abandoned plans “that would have compelled publishers of content behind ‘paywalls’ to make that content available for free through Britain’s main libraries”.

The report refers to the government’s response to a consultation on plans to allow libraries to use both free and paid-for content in their archives, which appears to have been published this month.

Currently, the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 grants the British Library, the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales, and the university libraries of Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity College, Dublin, the right to receive and store one printed copy of each printed work available in the UK.

Last September, the government, acting on advice from the Legal Deposit Advisory Panel, which advises government on the Act, proposed extending this provision to offline digital publications and online publications. The libraries would run harvesting algorithms to grab and store the content. But paid-access web systems make this more difficult.

… But, in conclusion this week, it [the government] says: “In the light of the overall responses, and the lack of evidence from both libraries and publishers to support the case that the regulations do not impose a disproportionate burden, we do not believe that it is viable to go forward with the regulations as currently drafted unless we can find evidence of proportionality.”

paidContent said this is “a victory” for news publishers.

Malcolm Coles: Why the Guardian’s future does look bleak

Writing on his blog, SEO expert Malcolm Coles claims the disparity in price between the Guardian’s digital services and print product is a problem for the company’s revenue.

Responding to a comment piece by former Sun editor Kelvin McKenzie, which predicts the Guardian’s print edition will be dead in a decade, Coles asks the paper: “Please, let me give you more money”.

A newspaper buyer until he got an iPad, Coles now pays £3.99 a year instead of £230 to read the Guardian everyday in print.

The collapse in what I pay is because I read most of the news for the next day’s newspaper on the Guardian website on my iPad the evening before. And I read anything new on my iPhone on the way to and from work. The newspaper has nothing in that I need.

Read the full post on Coles’ blog at this link.

paidContent: Sulzberger: $40m estimate for paywall cost is ‘vastly wrong’

Arthur Sulzberger has said Bloomberg’s report stating the development of the New York Times’ paywall cost between $40 million and $50 million is “vastly wrong”, but refused to say what the switch to paid digital content did cost, according to a post on paidContent.

Sulzberger also declined to offer any numbers when it comes to subscribers, saying it was too soon but that the company would provide some details eventually. At another point, asked about complaints that the pay plan is too complex, he urged people to be patient. Noting that the company was able to tweak the system between the launch in Canada and the US-global launch 10 days later, Sulzberger said: “We’re going to learn, adapt, make it simpler. But I don’t agree that it’s too complex. It’s new. Let it breathe for a little bit before you make judgment.”

paidContent’s full post is at this link.

Daily Sport: ‘No one was expecting such a rapid closure’ says NUJ

Staff at the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport, which ceased trading on Friday, were surprised by the papers’ swift closure, according to the National Union of Journalists.

NUJ negotiator Lawrence Shaw told Journalism.co.uk, referring to a recent job advert for a sports editor, the fact the company was still recruiting “signalled” it was unexpected.

“Everyone knew there was a debt and there have been problems but everyone was under the impression the worst was over,” Shaw said.

The editorial team had been through a “quite painful” restructure of subs and designers within the past year, he explained, but recent reports suggested a bounce back for owner Sport Media Group.

Shaw spent the day with staff in the Manchester offices yesterday. “It was strange to see page plans from Friday lying around like it was just frozen in time,” he said. “It is terribly sad to see the loss of the only national newspapers produced outside of London.”

Will the Shropshire and Wolverhampton walls pay?

Part-paywalls have gone up at the UK’s biggest-selling regional daily, the Wolverhampton-based Express and Star, and at sister title, the Shropshire Star. Breaking news will remain free but other content, such as football reports, are now behind the wall.

But will Wolverhampton and Shropshire pay?

At £2.19 more a month than the Times, is £12.18 too high a price for a monthly digital-only subscription?

Last week the Times, which went behind a paywall last summer, announced that it has 79,000 digital subscribers and the Financial Times, which has been behind a metered pay model for 10 years as of yesterday, also claims success with 210,000 subscribers.

But the Times and FT have their own reasons for tens of thousands of digital subscribers. The Times had a huge push to create high-value content as it went behind the wall and the Financial Times is perhaps best seen as a specialist publication with a wealthy readership prepared to pay for financial news.

Paywalls put up by UK regional newspapers have been less successful. Johnston Press trialled a paywall in 2009, testing it on some of the group’s smaller websites, the Southern Reporter in Scotland, the Northumberland Gazette and the Whitby Gazette, charging just 40 pence a week for access. The wall was dismantled after three months as it was deemed not viable.

There is a difference in the Express and Star’s approach and Johnston Press’ tactics though, in that the Wolverhampton and Shropshire titles are trying to push their print subscriptions, adding digital as an optional extra and are charging just 40 pence a week more for the print, online and smartphone deal than digital-only.

The exact cost may not be the deciding factor in whether readers decide to get their credit cards out. The Johnston Press paywall was very cheap – just £1.71 a month – but few paid. The New York Times, which went behind a metered-paywall last week, believes readers will pay up to $35 a month, which is the cost for a combined online, iPad and smartphone subscription (though readers were eased in with a £0.99 a month charge).

The Express and Star has taken the bold step of becoming the first major regional newspaper in the UK to go behind the wall. If it invests in high value content, makes payment easy, has an engaged audience already and can convince advertisers a quality rather than a quantity of online readers is more important, then the wall might work. If not, then the wall may come tumbling down.

Express and Star deputy editor Keith Harrison has told Journalism.co.uk he is confident the premium content site will be a success.

Reuters: FT resisting Apple’s efforts to channel subs through App Store

Reuters reports today that the Financial Times is “resisting Apple’s efforts” to channel subscribers through the App Store.

Last month Apple launched a new subscription service which ruled that publishers will still be allowed to sell app subscriptions through their own websites but will also have to offer subscriptions through Apple from within the app for the same price or less. This will then give Apple an opportunity to take away a 30 per cent cut of the subscription charge.

As part of the new service it is understood that customers purchasing a subscription through the App Store will be given the option of providing the publisher with details such as their name and email address when they subscribe, while publishers can also seek additional information from App Store customers “provided those customers are given a clear choice”, a release said at the time.

But in an interview with Reuters, the FT said it wants to continue to sell subscriptions for its digital news directly, rather than “surrender control of new customers”.

Apple’s hit tablet computer, the iPad, has become a major driver of new subscriptions to FT.com, thanks to its large and crisp display, possibilities for interactive features and affluent customer base.

But the FT values direct relations with its customers which allow it to tailor advertising and products to its audience, and is resisting Apple’s efforts to channel them through the App Store.

News publishers across Europe have raised concerns with the new service, such as the loss of 30 per cent of the subscription revenue, which the International Newsmedia Marketing Association (INMA) said would mean news publishers will not be able to invest in new technology, products and services.