When I quit The Sacramento Bee after nearly twenty-five years as a reporter and columnist in 2007, I looked like a fool. Who would leave a great job at a fine paper, without a buyout or even unemployment insurance?
But I was restless and bored, and two years later I looked less foolish: after my departure from The Bee, waves of buyouts and layoffs left dozens of my colleagues without journalism jobs.
By contrast, I had become editor-in-chief of the cutting edge “hyperlocal” Sacramento Press, launched in late 2008 and instantly one of the country’s model pro/am hybrid websites. I had been hired by a trio of smart, idealistic young entrepreneurs who were suddenly appearing on J-school and new media panels from California to New York and beyond, preaching the hyperlocal gospel.
With a variety of sites popping up across the country, “citizen journalism” was on. A new era in journalism had arrived. There was, suddenly, hope for a troubled industry. And I was a part of it.
I am still a part of it—and, yes, still hopeful. But I am also, if not exactly sadder, then at least a good deal wiser. Two years after my career peak as editor-in-chief, I find myself again unemployed: laid off this time, along with the Sacramento Press’s marketing director, in a “cost-cutting measure.” At least this time, I have unemployment insurance and an enhanced resume.
But I’m left with the uneasy knowledge that the economic ills to which “legacy” media are painfully subject these days are an equal or greater threat to “new” media. And that vulnerability is complicated by the brutal efficiency and lack of contract-based protection of workers that journalists at big newspapers have traditionally enjoyed.
We brave new media journalists serve at the pleasure of our owners.
The owners of The Sacramento Press are good guys, and the remaining staff at the online paper enjoys good salaries, health insurance, and excellent working conditions. Two other vacant positions will not be filled soon, and no one there has job security. But who in journalism does these days?
In any case, a professional staff was not part of the plan at The Sacramento Press, which was instead envisioned as an open platform for “community contributors” (CCs) to post their work. The idea was that CC stories would be amended by other readers in the “Conversation” section, which was to be managed more closely than the no-holds-barred “comments” sections of most online papers. Reporters were encouraged to respond to readers’ comments. And that has worked, for the most part.
But soon after my hiring I suggested to the owners that a core of professional journalists would anchor the site’s journalism, providing a good example to the amateurs. And I had an ulterior motive: Without dependable content, laying out the front page every night with whatever came in—which often wasn’t much, or very good—was a challenge.
We did have a revolving cast of young interns whose work was of wildly varying quality, but only experienced journalists would give us something I could be confident of. And only professional journalists could give our readers something to return to the site to read.
To the credit of co-founder Ben Ilfeld, whose family’s wealth seems to be the lifeblood of the enterprise (though his partners, especially Joel Rosenberg and Geoffrey Samek, contributed both cash and thousands of hours of start-up time), the money was forthcoming. With the money, I hired three reporters. An early intern, Colleen Belcher, was hired and soon became managing editor.
With my slightly tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless practical motto of “no story too small,” these young reporters and Belcher lit a fire under the local news media, focusing on stories that The Bee, the local alternative weekly, and the Sacramento Business Journal either didn’t notice, ignored, or couldn’t afford to cover.
We could afford to cover so many stories in part because my staff worked long hours, wrote quickly, and would file at least one, sometimes two, and occasionally three stories a day. It was not uncommon for reporters to do ten stories a week.
I agree with what you are saying WRT consistency and quality at the Sac Press. Many times, I've read a story (or worse, Started reading, only to quit) and wondered "doesn't anyone edit this stuff"? I love the idea of Citizen Journalists, and I've contributed; but I'm always wondering what the focus of the SP should be. Perhaps establishing some guidelines for stories (ie: local, newsworthy, events, non-commercial) would help.
#1 Posted by Lisa, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 05:04 PM
As a community and professional journalist, I see the benefit of hyperlocal as the chance to break a story that needs to be told. If you want or need to get news out, you can. The immediacy and lack of red tape is a bonus, but the lack of pay is, of course, a problem.
#2 Posted by deb belt, CJR on Thu 17 Nov 2011 at 06:39 PM
It's really important NOT to assume that hyperlocal = amateur/volunteer/etc. We do not have any assigned coverage written by amateur/volunteer writers. If I assign it, I pay for it. And my husband and I make our living from our site - no savings, family wealth, investors, co-owners, grants, etc. It can be done. I know the site at the heart of this story is a different model, and I have met Ben several times and admire his creativity and heart; I'm sorry the gig didn't work out for the writer and would urge him to find an underserved niche and strike out on his own! The job you create may be your own. I left a great-paying old media job in late 2007 to do this fulltime and it's still working :)
#3 Posted by Tracy in West Seattle, CJR on Sun 20 Nov 2011 at 11:46 PM
My question for Tracy is... What are you paying for and how do you value it?
Don't get me wrong... I'm not begrudging you a living and I applaud your entrepreneurship and the personal risk.
But I do wonder how you distinguish yourselves from the ordinary and I do wonder how you ascend in the face of institutional competition..
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 12:03 AM
Here are some discouraging remarks for investors trying to make the Sacramento Press and other "hyperlocal" news media profitable.
I'm a suburban middle-aged white male educated professional who lives near
Sacramento, often goes to Sacramento on business, and regularly follows news at the world, national, state, and local level. I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in ten years (except for The Economist) because news is free on the web. I look at the Sacramento Bee web site every day because the Bee is a known entity with some institutional credibility. I get the twice-daily Sacramento Business Journal emails with free updates on local business news. (That's how I discovered this article.) Sometimes I grab a free Sacramento News & Review weekly tabloid if I'm hanging out somewhere and want to read some alternative views. So there's my news profile.
Notice the Sacramento Press is not part of it. I've been aware of the Sacramento Press web site, but I only looked at the site once. I just don't have time to check every little news site every day, especially when so much other news is free and so easily accessible. As far as the mockery of certain articles in the Sacramento Press, I must admit the web site is so far below the radar that I've never heard such comments. I hear NO comments about the Sacramento Press, not even about the "junk."
Notice this article never addresses these questions that matter a lot: how many people are going to the site on a regular basis to get news and information? What number is needed to make the site profitable? Who is the target audience? Who are the advertisers that might want to pay money to reach that audience?
I'm predicting it won't be long before journalists are calling for government funding of hyperlocal web sites. It's the only way most of these sites will survive, unless their owners compromise journalistic principles and start posting photos of scantily-clad hyperlocal women.
#5 Posted by Perspective of a suburban middle-aged white male educated professional, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 09:16 PM
I think the successful "hyperlocals" will do what the local TV outlets mostly do now. Namely... Work.
Beat the streets. Investigate things. Report things.
People are interested in hearing about the cooked deputy superintendent who stole the laptops meant for the math class. Or the guy on the next block who got shot while walking his dog.
They're not interested in school board press releases or other "aggregations" of news that can be Googled by anyone who cares.
And, of course, video is what it will take to maintain interest.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 21 Nov 2011 at 09:48 PM
I enjoyed your article David. As the founder of my town's hyperlocal site, I'm always seeking to learn about what's working and what's not in the hyperlocal realm.
I like what you had to say regarding "community contributors" and professional journalists. I'm currently working with some local writers who want to contribute to my site. I've also found some of these writers are seasoned pros while others have trouble completing a sentence.
I could care less if they have a degree in English or Journalism, if they can write they can write. if readers enjoy it and it's the truth then it's valuable in my eyes.
One idea I have is to gather the interested writers together and bring them through a series of workshops that will help them improve their writing. The site I run is called The Battle Ground Buzz and my tag line is a site created, "by the people, for the people...to inform and empower."
I disagree with the school of thought that assumes hyperlocal media sites cannot support themselves financially. If a site receives 20,000 visitors a month and people are willing to pay to advertise on there then that means cash is flowing in. And what if you branched out and started a radio show (podcast) and eventually a video cast?
You could also sell ads on the radio and video cast.
You might be thinking, "Yeah, but how much do you make with your site?"
Nothing...yet.
"See, I knew it!"
But I just started my site less than 3 months ago and I've already had 3-4 people ask how they can advertise on there.
I plan to launch a radio show and a video cast very soon. I'm working with local writers who believe in the vision of the Buzz and are willing to contribute. They know I cannot afford to pay them right now and they're OK with that.
I've also found many business owners are also writers who enjoy writing in exchange for the "free" advertisement it gives them.
You might not make a fortune on a hyperlocal site but I believe you can develop a business model that will sustain itself.
I make money as a freelance copywriter (hence, the long-form comment) and so I don't have to rely on income from my hyperlocal site. But eventually I would like to pay writers and others who help maintain it.
But I think the key (at least for me right now) is to provide valuable content to my readers and to keep my overhead low.
So ask me again this time next year how much my site is bringing in? You might be right but I have a feeling you're not. ;)
Those are my thoughts on the matter. What are yours? I'm interested in hearing other perspectives but I just think the "It doesn't work!" mentality is very counterproductive to those of us who are making hyperlocal work.
#7 Posted by Joshua Monen, CJR on Mon 28 Nov 2011 at 02:51 PM
"I'm predicting it won't be long before journalists are calling for government funding of hyperlocal web sites. It's the only way most of these sites will survive...."
THIS.
A hyper-local website in a small/medium market like Sacramento is just never going to generate the kind of numbers that will deliver results for advertisers. Advertisers pay the bills for this kind of operation. Keep adding advertisers while your traffic stays the flat and you'll just give your clients continually lower impressions and lousy ROI.
Hyper-local news is great... but it's not something that's going to make anyone rich. A conundrum for someone treating it as a for-profit business.
#8 Posted by ST, CJR on Fri 20 Jan 2012 at 03:10 AM