We now know exactly how valuable any given ad is, and the answer turns out to be: not much. Web ads provide almost perfect measurability for advertisers—someone did or did not click on your ad, then did or did not buy your product. As a result, the old saw about advertisers knowing that half their advertising dollars were wasted, but not which half, no longer holds true. An efficient ad business is a less profitable one for traditional media outlets.
The threat to ad-subsidized news was hidden in part by the fact that print revenues rose through 2005, even as the Web was spreading like an oil slick. After 15 years of trying to adapt to the commercial Web, no one has figured out a way to replace print revenue with digital. This makes significant reduction in cost a forced move for every traditional news outlet, leaving only three broad options over the next few years: shrinking, restructuring, or collapse.
We’re already in the shrinking phase, where organizations conserve their structure while dramatically reducing headcount. As has been pointed out by everybody who thinks about this strategy for five minutes, holding prices constant while reducing quality has never been much of a dangle. (Similar logic will probably hold true as TV ad revenues continue to fall in the next few years.)
The open question for shrinking is simple: Is there a smaller newsroom that can still create a worthwhile product? Can a 300-person newsroom shrink enough to operate on lower revenues, while still earning ad revenue that supports that smaller staff? Can they do it with 200 people? 150? Newsrooms have fired, on average, something like a third of their newsroom staff since the highwater mark of newsroom employment, and it has not yet been enough.
The best that can be said about shrinking to some small but stable state is that it beats going out of business. There’s another possibility, though, and that’s restructuring, which is shrinking plus dramatic organizational change. “Doing more with less” is the mantra of every publisher who’s just sacked a dozen reporters, because the “with less” part is a forced move. The “doing more” part, though, requires reinvention of method, not just reduction of employees.
News startups large and small—MAPLight, Smoking Gun, Homicide Watch, ProPublica—are all experimenting with new sources of informational value—amateurs, crowds, databases—and with new possibilities for producing news in partnerships and consortia. These organizations all punch above their weight, given their staff costs. In the same way the Industrial Revolution made an hour of a weaver’s time far more valuable, by increasing the cloth he could produce, an hour of a journalist’s time can similarly become more valuable, provided that journalist knows how to work with their readers, or to explore newly available data, and provided her institution supports that kind of work.
Working the way MAPlight or Smoking Gun do would seem to be options available to any journalistic outfit that is interested, but in practice, few large media organizations are yet willing to substantially transform the way their employees do their jobs. This isn’t just about individual job descriptions, but about rethinking the layers of accountability and control that characterize all large organizations. One advantage Talking Points Memo has over its larger competitors is that there are simply not enough employees to have a complex management structure, enabling tpm to try new things and stop doing old things at a faster rate. Presence of process turns out to be a bigger obstacle to change than lack of resources.
Then there’s collapse, the fate of the Rocky Mountain News, The Albuquerque Tribune, The Cincinnati Post, inter alia, requiescat in pace. Collapse is what happens when an organization can’t shrink or restructure to stability, or when it decides to extract the cash it can as it vanishes. Not much needs to be said about collapse except that more is coming.

I completely agree. It is time to examine new models of news production. That is why efforts like Journtent (www.Journtent.com) - which focuses on newsroom reorganization, local data collection, software to speedily sort through local data, and even outsourced news writing - are worth a look. It is time to trial outside-of-the-box thinking.
#1 Posted by James Macpherson, CJR on Thu 6 Sep 2012 at 09:30 AM
Very compelling argument and well-stated, Clay. Traditional media's "original sin" as regards the Web was to make themselves in their own image, while the alpha geeks building the Web itself saw things differently. Time is the new currency, and the Web's gift to humanity is that of saving time. Legacy media is just the opposite; it's about an infrastructure that actually wastes time, and until we get that right, we're all simply chasing our tails. The three-legged stool is a great analogy, but the Web views it as inefficient across-the-board. As a result, it routes around the media company leg, so the whole thing collapses.
We are in an amazing time in communications' history, a time when a single individual can compete for attention alongside vaunted institutions and actually have a hope of getting through the clutter. Content marketing has lowered the over-reaching beacons of mass media by raising those of people who used to pay for the privilege of renting space alongside the content of the few.
I will argue that we're deep in a transition, and further, that nobody has even come close to figuring out exactly where it's going or what to do. This is especially true, because there is little incentive for big players to experiment. 2012 will go down as a record revenue year for local broadcasters, for example, and agencies representing the biggest ad dollars have no desire to whack their own fatted calf.
So I predict it'll get a whole lot worse before the blossoms of tomorrow begin to bloom.
#2 Posted by Terry Heaton, CJR on Sat 8 Sep 2012 at 03:58 PM
Here's another take: the unit of restructuring is probably national journalism. The public may well be saying that we don't need multiple formal municipal journalism outlets, one local tv station and web site is enough for various regions. The national carrying capacity for news is probably something like 4 national papers/operations, and a single small regional operation like WSYR in Syracuse for the local news.
Don't forget that the people formerly called sources now have the ability to tell their stories and blow their whistles on popular platforms like youTube or a special interest blog. The forces of disintermediation have claimed reporters, but people interested in telling a story will still find people who want to know what's going on around here. Plus ca change.
The end game likely sees local journalism devolving to those with the strongest vested interest. Civic watchdogging will suffer until enough critical mass and unrest develops a la the Occupy movement. Stories will be told, institutions will adapt.
#3 Posted by Stephen Masiclat, CJR on Tue 18 Sep 2012 at 07:58 PM