Why Rob Curley is right
I've been an on-again, off-again supporter of Web journalism phenom Rob Curley since he made his major label debut in Lawrence some years ago. Of course, many of my colleagues would gasp that I was ever in doubt about Curley's greatness -- he is God to most of the business.
Funny thing is, it took a personal viewing of the Curley show at the University of Tennessee -- courtesy TNJN and their awesome conference -- and the input from a print designer (my fiance) to cement my thoughts on the man.
My primary beef with Curley's efforts has been how he fails to monetize the resulting content. This is especially troubling when you take into account the high costs associated with many of his projects, such as Studio 55 and Game. In fact, he said as much in response to my comments about the lack of financial return for OnBeing (from Melissa Worden's blog:
I'm going to say something that I've never said in my 10 years as an online journalist: I don't care how it's monetized.
Of course, Curley then went on to say in a later comment:
I want to build things that attract local audiences so that local advertisers will want to be a part of what we're doing...It didn't take me long to figure out that if the money is coming in, then I got more people to help build cool shit!
This makes sense for the most part as long as the newspaper sales staff is versed on how to go about making this an attractive buy for those local advertisers. And Curley makes some cool shit, no doubt about it.
But why haven't more newspapers unloaded their resources into projects like Game, Teen Shopping or even Loudon Extra?
I think it's due to their ownership by shareholders instead of families. The Lawrence Journal-World is a good example of a media company that accepts lower profits for a higher quality product with tremendous market penetration. They also use the heck out of some interns.
If every newspaper in the country were to adopt Curley's approach for content, I dare say their user-satisfaction would be much higher than it is today (which is abysmal). Of course, they wouldn't do this -- who would pay for it?
Here's my take: Newspapers will have to fundamentally change how they operate. This means restructuring on the level of closing shop, and recreating the business from the ground up as a low-profit, or even a non-profit. No more 140-person newsrooms. No more warehouse-size presses. No more waste.
In fact, newspapers should be re-marketed as information distribution centers. News -- including vertical content, raw data and stories in all formats -- will need to be peddled in the medium to which it works best. In-depth stories read better in print. Briefs and updates should be sent as SMS. Data needs to flow without regard to tradition or history, but as what makes sense.
Of course, this great reconstruction implies more than a few paragraphs. Take a look at most of the startups from the past few years -- you'll see where I'm going with this.
Only then can I see Curley's innovative efforts pervade the media in a coherent fashion. But until then Rob, keep fighting the good fight.
Four comments
I think Rob is part of the camp of people that believe if you build it they will come.
I personally believe he is right. The problem with only caring about making money is that we end up making applications and content that are so focused on being monetized that they never become popular. You can't make money if you're products don't resonate, and newspapers have an awful lot of products that don't resonate with people.
I have said before that innovation is the path to salvation (http://patthorntonfiles.com/blog/?p=142). If we innovate cool features, applications and content, we'll build big, happy audiences. With audiences like that, we'll be able to make money.
Yes, I think ROI is important (I think I focus on this more than Rob does), but in the end we need to build cool stuff. That's how we'll turn this industry around.
@Pat
I agree with you for the most part, but I still say that to take Rob's approach means newspapers need to fundamentally change their business model to one without a financial impetus.
While you can create innovative products that attract users and make money -- plenty of startups are an example of this -- this doesn't seem to fit well with the existing structure of a news organization.
And I will disagree with you on your last point: Building "cool stuff" is definitely not the answer to the industry's woes. We need to build "useful stuff" instead.
Don't forget, "if you spell it correctly... and if you punctuate it properly... and if you include accurate information... they will come." Curley's arrogant disdain for the fundamentals of journalism and the basics of business, let alone common courtesy, make him more of a bully than a rebel or an innovator. You can sit around thinking of cool s--t all day, but if you have no respect for the mission of your medium (regardless of the tools of the medium) then you've just hitched all your cool s--t to someone else's wagon and it shouldn't come as a surprise that they aren't overjoyed about having to drag your arrogant weight around.
@aeiou
I wouldn't say Curley has no regard for the medium. After all, he came up from the print product like most folks working in newsrooms.
Curley has done a lot to help others think outside their dead-tree editions, which is a good thing IMHO.
I think maybe you're a little bitter, eh?
Post a comment
Please use Markdown syntax for formatting. No HTML is allowed. By using this comment form, it's assumed that you agree with the terms of my comment policy.