Learning from The Guardian’s web strategy
Yesterday I listened to Tim Brooks talking about the web strategy for Guardian News and Media. Now Tim is probably in the most enviable position of any media executive, with the backing of the Scott Trust, and having just moved to modern premises at King’s Place, but I think his views - which were, as ever, very strongly expressed - have relevance to those of us with much more modest budgets….
1. On integrating the editorial team
The Guardian, Observer and web teams, previously spread over 5 locations, are now all in one building, and the section heads across all three are with line of sight. There is a single newsdesk, and single subject teams, eg environment, arts. All journalists now have new skills on web, video and audio, and the discussion on the news agenda for the day covers all three publications. The Observer has kept its own distinctive “commentariat” but all else is shared. Smaller publishers should take note…
2. On never again launching a print product
All GNM’s future investment is now in digital - they will not launch a print product. The decline in the newspaper habit among younger age groups is inexorable. Magazine publishers may feel they have more time on their side, but this may give them pause for thought on print-only launches.
3. On finding a new business model for quality journalism
All the broadsheet papers are losing money, and many are surviving only due to the support of other businesses in their group. This situation is repeated in regional and local press. The old model of recruitment and display advertising that indirectly funded quality journalism is under threat. A new business model is needed - the next generation of aspiring journalists will have to start out blogging to build a reputation. This approach worked for Rafat Ali - he started at his kitchen table and 10 years later sold his business Content Next to Guardian News and Media for a tidy sum…
4. On the new broadcasters
The old broadcast model relied on scarce spectrum dished out to TV companies by Ofcom in return for public service obligations and heavy regulation. The commercial press is now becoming an online broadcaster - all GNM journalists create video and audio - but this is self-regulated and available to all.
5. On charging for content
The Guardian will never charge for its content - Tim’s view is that would cut their audience by 90%. Now GNM can sustain this through an ad downturn, but what about smaller commercial publishers? Perhaps the model is to offer free content to widen your brand’s reach, and then work hard to sell another product, maybe a print subscription, an event ticket or another service.
I’d love to hear your views on how far the Guardian’s strategy has relevance to smaller publishers - just click on the comment button.
Carolyn Morgan’s consultancy business, Penmaen Media, advises media owners on how to grow their revenues in a digital world. For more info, visit www.penmaen-media.co.uk.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed;
or follow all entries (RSS) and comments (RSS) from Penmaen Media Ltd.
Tags: blogging, content, editorial team, GNM, Guardian, integration, quality journalism, strategy, Tim Brooks
I have taken on board all the recent comments about ‘charging’ and to be honest it’s the same four letter word… ‘Fear’
The online portal could charge for content, but who would be brave enough to do it, people said that you will never get pay tv (like the bbc was not that?) but i sit here with £50 a month going out of my bank, why, because i can’t get vh1 or scuzz on ‘normal’tv, it was entertainment/music which led the sky revolution (before the premiership!) which means that same online revolution should be led from the same place…
I suggested to the independant newspaper when they had their ‘free’ monthly music magazine, that they should in fact ‘digitise’ it and charge for it as an online extra, they ignored that of course, but every weekend get my ‘dose’ of newspapers with their endless supplements, most of which i ignore, but of course on saturday the ‘review’ the ‘playlist’ and ‘the guide’ get their well earned hour of my time, same can be said of ‘the information’ ‘culture’ ‘observer music monthly’ the sunday ’supplements’ but i have dumped half of what i have bought in the bin, ‘travel’ or ‘motoring’ ’sport monthly’ and don’t mention ‘woman’ anything i could care less about, which defeats the object…
but i would much rather just pay that £5:00 every sunday just to get the bits i actually want, i now split the ‘keep and dump’ parts up before i buy them, i actually throw %75 of what i buy straight n the bin as i leave the shop, thats four newspapers (The times, The observer, The independant, The mail) regular as clockwork every sunday bloody sunday, they laugh at me doing it, but i am sick of taking it home, just t never read it, trust me i NEVER read the sections when i took them home…
I have spoken to others at length about this (they all agree, some friends some collegues) they do the same (not all keep the same bits i do of course) but the point is that when i ask them ‘would you not prefer just to read the supplements you wanted online, they all say yes, but NOT in net format, but in bloody magazine format that they turn just like the mag, so they feel it’s worth a damn both to them as readers and from the point of view of the ‘publisher’…
W did a ‘digital magazine’ promo edition for Planet Rock Radio, 1,000 people paid £1:00 each to get it delivered to their inbox every month, so that’s only £1,000. It’s a drop in the ocean, but it’s that drop that shows the tap is open, they never took it on and we gave all the money back, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but it said to me that if a radio station and a newspaper got together to produce a monthly music/entertainment supplement, people would pay, the times had a dvd they used to do once a month, never understood why it was free, i would have paid a pound for it on it’s own, just so as not to get all the other ’shite’ that came with it… I can read that ’shite’ online!!!
You can argue that as someone involved with turnpage technology i wold be bias, but i will say the f-word to that, why because i’m a consumer who just want’s to consume in the modern age what my lifestye will dictate to my deathstyle, films, sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, wrestling, tattoo’s, it’s what i dig, so feed me, feed me now!
So perhaps on of the newspapers will take a chance, a digital only publication, with a digital covermount, that you just get via the website, maybe you give up 50p via paypal, perhaps with a code, that you only get when you buy the paper, so u still got to get the print to get the digital, or via the website, so the vendor becomes the seller!!! so u do pay… one way or another!
Jj Haggar…
Interesting point - that actually consumers’ time is more precious to them, and there is a value in getting a selection of relevant content rather than everything publisher wants to put out. See my other post on paying for content: I think the debate about digital editions is also relevant - some subs marketing houses find that take-up is less than for print - see my post on the future of subs. Carolyn
I follow your blog for quite a long time and must tell that your articles are always valuable to readers.
FANTASTIC!