————————————————–

Bi-Co Boot Camp, September 13, 2008, By: Yoni Greenbaum ©2008

Thanks, Andrea for that introduction and thank you all for this opportunity to speak with you today.

Now some of you might laugh, especially since we just met, but the truth is I already owe you an apology. I know that may be hard to believe, but it actually gets worse, because not only do I owe you one but so do my colleagues at newspapers throughout the country.

As you all know the newspaper industry is in horrible shape. Circulation is declining, advertising is disappearing, revenue is shrinking, the news just isn’t good. But all of this didn’t just suddenly – happen. These problems didn’t just materialize overnight. Frankly, some of them didn’t have to occur at all.

Somewhere along the way we dropped the ball, we screwed the pooch, we lost sight of the goal line, hell, we just blew it.

As publishers, editors and department heads, many of us were arrogant, ignorant or just plain lazy. We thought that we knew what was best for our readers and, all too often, ignored their complaints, their requests, their suggestions and even their compliments. We thought we were immune to the economic problems that were sweeping the country and failed to adjust our spending and our budgets. We thought technology such as the Internet, Mobile and Digital Media were niches and not areas we needed to address. When it came to too many issues we were content to say not us. And, as a result, we individually and cumulatively allowed these problems to develop and grow.

And to make matters worse, reporters, copy editors and other employees sat by and watched. Sure they grumbled, they might have even complained to their co-workers, but too few took a stand, too few tried to do anything so they too share some of responsibility.

So while you might not hear it from the likes of Gary Pruitt or Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., and I can’t promise anything for certain from my colleagues, let me, Yoni Greenbaum, apologize for everything that I did do and, more importantly, everything that I didn’t do. I am truly sorry, you deserved better.

Thanks. Thanks for letting me say that. I meant it, I am sorry. I am not however one of those who believe that as an industry we are doomed that our institutions are lost and that it is only a matter of time before I and thousands of others are out of work. Actually I think this is an extremely exciting time to be working in newspapers. And to be honest, I think that the answers we need will come from people like you. Not that I’m trying to put any pressure on you, but I really believe that you can save this industry and skills and drive that you will need you are getting by working at your campus publication.

I’m not kidding and I’m getting paid by Dave for saying that.

Throughout my career I’ve been fortunate to have worked at some great newspapers and to have learned from some really talented people. Sure those experiences have helped to shape the type of journalist that I am today. But you know, when I think about it, it was not the Pulitzer Prize-winning writers, the reporting abroad opportunities or the awards that have had the biggest, longest-lasting impact on me. Actually, the experience I find myself most often reflecting on was the years that I spent at my college newspaper.

See, in 1992 I was making my second go at college and was working at my campus’s newspaper. The Beacon at William Paterson University, one of New Jersey’s state schools, was, at the time, your typical student-run weekly newspaper. We had about a dozen students who served as editors, reporters and photographers and who handled ad sales, billing and receiving. Production was a cut and paste operation involving lots of razor blades and hot wax – I’ll skip the S&M jokes. We typically started assembling an issue at 5 p.m. and ended in the wee hours of the next morning at which point a staff member would drive the boards over to the printer and everyone would head over to the local diner for coffee and disco fries.

We were a passionate and dedicated bunch. A mix of stoners, skaters, geeks and outcasts. None of us were making any real money – certainly not the student government association which technically oversaw the operation of the paper. With very little guidance or support from our school we tried our best to improve and grow. We read the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and dreamed of the big leagues. We looked at our local newspapers and said “if they could do it, why can’t we.” So we decided to evolve.

We used some of the money that was in our club account and purchased new computers, a server and best of all, a large format printer. Suddenly, production went from pasting together multiple pieces to hitting print. Instead of taking all night, production now took a few hours. We purchased newspaper boxes and placed them not just on campus, but in the surrounding communities. We created a media kit to get better advertising and redesigned the office, even going as far as to hire a receptionist. Suddenly we were feeling like a “real” weekly newspaper. Now in hindsight I’ll admit that the writing sucked and the layout was boring and for some of us, working at the paper was more of an excuse to miss class then to develop our journalism skills. But at that time, we thought we were cutting edge.

I remember at one point we tried to sell our newspaper to one of the local newspaper companies that at the time was owned by Dean Singleton, CEO of Media General. I know, we didn’t even technically own the newspaper to be able to sell it, but our thinking was that the daily could use it like their minor league team and as a result, how a steady flow of reporters, photographers and copy editors to hire upon graduation.

Long story short, the sale didn’t happen, but what I remember from those meetings is that we were paginated and they weren’t. We had new distribution boxes and a circulation strategy based on census data and they didn’t. At that moment, we sure as heck didn’t feel like your typical student newspaper. I think that experience made us all believe that we could do anything. So we tried many things and in the end some failed but others worked. We made money, actually a lot of money. We got taken seriously by the local press and, in the end I made connections that resulted in first job at a daily.

In the years that have passed since my college days, I have relied on that “do anything” or “try anything” spirit at each job I’ve had. It was behind my decision to try the Nextel two-way radios that enabled my staff to effectively report from ground zero when the cell networks went down; it provided me with the confidence to ask for cell cards and laptops longs before they were popular; and it gave me the guts to send reporters to a variety of locals including Baghdad right after the U.S. led invasion.

I share those examples with you knowing full well that they pale in comparison to what each of you would offer a newspaper or media company given the chance.

For example raise your hand if you send text messages.

As I thought.

Would you believe that I’ve encountered editors who won’t let their staff’s use text messaging because they don’t like it?

There are editors and publishers who still don’t have broadband Internet access in their homes; who don’t know how to setup voicemail and who can’t even open email attachments. And we wonder why they can’t get us out of the mess that we’re in.

But as I said previously, I don’t believe all is lost. There are newspaper companies where the staffs are fighting for a future. Places that “get it.” Places where people with your skills would be welcomed.

I think Philly.com is one of those places and, not just because I work there.

Before joining the philly.com team some six months ago, I had a choice, go back to the newsroom and lead the fight for survival or join an outfit that was taking an ambitious and decidedly different approach. Having always straddled the online and the print worlds I saw philly.com’s graying of that line as exciting, as a chance for me to combine my two passions and skill sets and, frankly, an opportunity for me to help create a model for the rest of the industry.

Philly.com is more then just a website for the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News. We are not, like you see at so many newspapers, an adjunct to the newsroom – a group of poorly dressed people sequestered in a corner of the newsroom or holed-up in a former janitor’s closet.

If anything, we are more dot com.

Our offices are not even in the same building as the two newspapers, but on the 35^th floor of a Center City building that features panoramic views. In moving to our new location, something that we did bout four months ago, we combined an operation that was stretched out among eight different floors. Now, content, tech, sales, and biz dev can all work together and that is important because our job, the job of philly.com is not to right wrongs or win awards, but to grow as a website and, most of all, to make money.

So, we consider anything. We don’t believe we have all the answers. We pay an ever increasing amount attention to our visitors and advertisers. We frequently ask them how we are doing and what can we do different, what can we do better?

All of our employees have a say. And by all I really mean all even interns. We explore new technologies and new approaches. We try something and if it works, we stick with it and if it doesn’t we move on.

Additionally, we believe in a personal touch. While you can look at the homepage of nytimes.com and washingtonpost.com and see lots of automated headline lists, at philly.com nearly everything that appears on our homepage is there because a member of my team has chosen it to be there.

And as part of that, metrics rule. At least every 30 minutes we are looking at our stats and seeing what is doing well, what is doing poorly. What is rising and what is falling. And we use that data along with our journalistic sense to then power our decisions.

In addition we’ve embraced video and not just news video. Philly.com now produces three daily shows and half a dozen weekly shows. Our videos are viewed nearly 300,000 times a month.

We’re launching new products including a new music site, a site for sports fans, others online products.

I think we have a good strategy. Our traffic is growing, this month alone we’re looking at more then 40 million page views and 4.2 million unique visitors and online revenue is up.

But the truth is we can’t do it alone. Those companies that are going to survive this period, including philly.com, who have embraced the Internet and who see technology as a salvation and not a distraction need individuals like yourselves. I hope you recognize how much we look forward to working with you. Ultimately, the future of our industry rests in your hands.

So please, don’t believe the naysayers and continue the fight to help newspapers survive and thrive. And check out philly.com and let me know what you think my email is on the site, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thank you.

As I wrote in a previous post, there is a growing sentiment at many papers that there are just too few people to tackle what seems like ever-growing to-do lists. What concerns me about that reaction is that I fear it reflects organizations who are only considering the first “no one can do it all” part of the above phrase.

While organizations can keep on increasing the responsibilities for their reporters, editors, photographers or producers, the reality is quality will suffer and morale will decline. In my mind, it should not be a case of simply adding, but of adding and subtracting. I would encourage you to look for redundancies or places where you can leverage either your existing print or online operation.

For example:

• Is the same content being entered twice, once for print and once for online?
• Is there work that either readers can do or that technology can assist with? For example can letter to the editor be scanned rather then manually entered in your editorial system or can readers be encouraged to complete an online form?
• Could reporters provide a list of the websites they used to research a story to help enhance it when it appears online?
• Can copy editors provide a web headline when they come up with the print headline?

I know these are rather basic suggestions, but my point is — if you look at your process before you simply start handing out new responsibilities, you might find that either you can replace existing duties or that someone is already doing it, but in a way you didn’t see. In a time when being efficient is key, it’s inefficient to blindly hand out new tasks.

To be fair, this used to be a much broader problem. Thankfully though, in recent years, some newspapers print email addresses for reporters at the bottom of stories and others use online forms. Some don’t do either and even make it hard to directly contact anyone, hoping instead to channel all interactions through a series of general forms.

In order to get a sense of the practices that are going on in the industry, I looked at the contact practices of the top 30 newspapers according to the most recent Nielsen Online report, and here’s what I found:

• 16 newspaper include reporter email address either at the bottom of stories or via clicking on the byline.
• 5 provide no direct access and instead drive inquires through general online forms.
• 4 use reporter specific contact forms and shield email addresses.
• 5 offer full staff list (email addresses and phone numbers) once you dig through the main contact us list.

Some other practices worth noting:

• On some sites (nytimes.com, startribune.com) in addition to providing a reporter’s email address, clicking on the byline reveals a list of of the reporter’s recent stories.
• At least one site (politico.com) offers full bio and picture for their writers.

As you can see, the trend is toward great ease of access and I argue that is a good thing. Additionally, I encourage newspapers to move away from the master staff list approach. All too often those lists are some sub-category of the Contact Us or About Us navigation. Readers in some of these cases have to first click on (for example) Contact Us, then find the department and then (in some cases) the name of the bureau before getting to a list of reporters. I just don’t see that many people going through that gauntlet and I think that, ultimately, your newspaper loses out.

I think it is important for readers to be able to dialogue with reporters and other staff members. Actually, it doesn’t make any sense to me to provide access to reporting staff but, as is the case at some papers, hide photographers and some editors.

In my perfect newspaper world, readers would be able to engage newspaper staffers via email, instant messaging and/or chat rooms. At the very least, I would think via email. So what does you newspapers do? Are you among the 16 or the 5?

NOTE: I’m proud to be participating, along with fellow journalism bloggers from around the world in the Carnival of Journalism. In addition to reading my post please visit the Carnival host site and see what my colleagues are writing about. Not sure what a blog carnival is? Check out this entry on Wikipedia.

In most newsrooms, story meetings are near clandestine events, with participants marching, piles of paper in hand, to a conference room (or office) only to emerge anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half later looking haggard and, in some cases, confused and dejected.

For those of you who watch the very popular television version of the “entertainment news, celebrity gossip and Hollywood rumors” website TMZ.com, you will know that their meetings are done in the open with seemingly broad participation. Editor and founder Harvey Levin stands at the front of the room and users a clear board to note stories that the show will be using. There is a free exchange as the individual staffers (or are they editors?) offer their story ideas.

Now, back to what goes on inside story meetings at most newsrooms.

Participants are typically gathered around a conference room table or the perimeter of an office. The individual running the meeting, usually the editor or managing editor, sits at the head of the table. And then in a very stodgy and organized fashion the editor goes around the table, having each of the attendees read the budgetlines they’ve prepared. If there is an exchange, it is definitely not a free one.

Now granted, the TMZ meeting is filmed, so how much of it is done for camera, I don’t really know. And whether or not it has an impact, positive or otherwise, I can’t gauge from my seat on my couch. But it’s hard to argue that their meeting approach is the more positive and likely more productive one. Before you start shaking your head saying that’s TV, pay attention to the meeting occurring in this video:

While it may lack the pizazz of TMZ, it does seem to mimic the open part. The New York Times is not alone, there are other newspapers that have moved the meeting out into the open and still others that have even taken their meetings online (but I would suggest that those are the same as the traditional meeting, except the stodginess is shared with the online audience).

I would suggest trying the TMZ approach. Open your meeting (maybe just the morning meeting) to the entire staff. Build the budget from those in attendance, editors can speak for staffers not in attendance, staffers can offer their own ideas based on what they’re working on or what they know is going on. Encourage that free exchange. I think you’ll find that the meeting will boost morale, encourage collaboration and even increase productivity.

If nothing else, film the meeting and throw it online. Heck, it works for TMZ.

I’ve been fortunate to work with some great assistant editors; they’ve been writers and poets, comedians and musicians, environmentalists and artists. And while I don’t think any of them dreamt of one day being an assistant editor, they gave the position their best and in most cases, had a lasting impact if not on the reporters they worked with then, on me.

As I previously wrote, I believe that assistant editors are the unsung heroes of the newsroom and that starts with how they got the job. In many cases, they were hardworking reporters who one day were told “you’re an editor now,” and without any fanfare and even less training, they’re thrust into this new position. Suddenly, they find themselves managing their former peers, working an ungodly schedule and following instructions that would leave anyone shaking their heads.

See, I believe that most assistant editors are smarter then they get credit for. Actually, I believe that most are even smarter then the executive editors they work for. But that typically isn’t taken into consideration in an environment where the assistant editor is seen as the “grunt” of their desk, expected to silently do as they’re told.

The truth is that assistant editors typically have their finger on the pulse of the newsroom. They know when the reporting staff is aggravated or depressed. They know when a project is going off the rails long before the metro or features editor gets around to paying attention. And they know how readers are going to react (or not react) to changes in say, the TV book.

If it was up to me, assistant editors would be rewarded appropriately and given the training and tools worthy of their roles and positions. But, we know where you can find that storyline. So, I believe, that these editors need take control of their own careers. Here’s what you can do if you find yourself in this position:

• Go online and seek out your own low-cost or free training.
• Advocate to be sent to programs like Poynter’s Leadership Academy by highlighting the ROI for your newspaper.
• Discover, use and share new tools and techniques.
• Reach out and connect with colleagues at other papers; even if you compete, you’re all in the same boat.
• When the fun stops, take stock and figure out why and what you can do.

Those are a few ideas, I’m sure as the life of this blog progresses I’ll have more, so check back. But the most important thing that I think I can say to you, that maybe you don’t hear often enough is — thank you — thanks for all that you do, thanks for keep our newspapers going.

Now might be a moment to drag out that maxim “if the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed will go to the mountain.”

My suggestion is that you still host those discussions, those meetings and many more gatherings and sessions, but do it in a venue that takes advantage of the habits or your reporters. How can you do this, you ask? Two words — Chat Rooms.

Just six-months-old, ChatMaker.Net allows you to create “very own exclusive, invitation-only chat room.” Simply select a name for your room and the site generates a web address that you can share with only those you want to invite. Once inside, participants can click on the generic name that site assigns them and enter their own name. From there, you’ve got your own online discussion.

While ChatMaker does not allow you to share files or pictures, it does recognize links, which I think justs ads to it’s strengths. And unlike many Instant Messaging applications that allow for group chats, you don’t need to be a member of any particular service or sign-up for anything; and, it is completely free.

I believe that this approach can work in your newsroom because, as I previously said, it plays to the habits of your staff. Think about it, they are already IMing with their friends and/or colleagues. They’re sending their own emails on, say Gmail, at the same time that they’re working on their stories. This is the multitasking generation; don’t ask them to do something different, just have them add another task.

I know first-hand how much the computer systems at many newspapers leave you wanting something more. I had a computer once that physically shimmied and shook if I tried to work on a spreadsheet at the same time that I was on the Internet. But try telling the executive editor that you need a new computer; you’re likely to get laughed out of their office.

Thankfully at most newspapers, Internet access is no longer an issue. Gone are the days when there was only one or two machines connected to the Net. Additionally most newsrooms have left behind dial-up and embraced faster connectivity. So what does any of this mean for our assistant editor with the circa 1980 machine who has no hope for new hardware and whose software is an even bigger joke. Where can they turn? What other tech options do they have?

While the Internet is full of content that can be used to waste time (my personal favorite is Desktop Tower Defense), it also offers lots of productivity and organization tools. There are two companies in particular that I think can provide the most assistance in this instance.

The most familiar would be Google Docs. The company, known for Internet search, email and instant messaging, has developed a suite of applications including an online word processor, spreadsheet and presentation program (think PowerPoint, but not). One of the things that’s great about these online tools is just that, they’re online, so you can use them wherever you have access to an Internet connection. And you can easily transfer documents from one of these applications to Microsoft Word or Excel and vice-versa. As such, moving content from say Google Documents (their version of Word) to your editorial or CMS would also likely be simple. Additionally, all these applications allow for great collaboration. For example, at Ottaway, I will frequently use Google Spreadsheet instead of Excel. I can work on it wherever I am and my colleagues can contribute, even when I’ve already got the spreadsheet open.

The other option comes from the folks at 37signals. What they have to offer is really a organizational tool. Backpack is “a simple web-based service that allows you to make pages with to-do lists, notes, files, and images … also features a Calendar and Reminders that can be sent via email or to your cell phone at predefined times.” There is nothing to say that you can’t use Backpack in conjunction with Google Docs. Get organized with Backpack and stay productive with Google Docs.

While both of these are free, Backpack does offer paid upgrades for added functionality.

You’ll have to decide what works for you. For example, you might just want to start with Google Documents, since it will allow you to work at home on reviews and that weekend package. Or you may want to use Google Spreadsheet to plan the holiday rotation. On the other hand, a to-do list tied in with email reminders might be just what you need to ensure that you get your timesheet in on time or expense reports filed before the deadline.

Best of all, since these are online applications, no one has to know you are using them, they’ll just marvel at your increased productivity and organizational skills.

I think the concept of using technology to strengthen the team approach can have real value, but today I want to focus on something that can have just as much, if not more, impact without any tech. In the run and gun life of a newsroom, time for reflection is a rapidly disappearing commodity, even finding time to read one’s own newspaper can be challenging. So it’s really no surprise that postmortems are left for either the morning meeting or the front-page meeting (if at all).

Now it could be that editors are distracted by the word’s etymology (Latin, post mortem, after death), but more then likely it’s that in the crush of ever-increasing added responsibilities, postmortems have become another one of those things editors (at all levels) would like to do, “if they could only find the time”. But I would suggest, I would urge, I would even go as far as to implore you, to find the time.

So what am I really talking about? What do I think a postmortem entails? Who should be included? And, given that time is truly limited, does every story deserve a postmortem?

Well starting in reverse, I agree that this can’t be done with every story, but it should be done with at least all 1A stories and from there, all section front stories. These are your heavy hitters, these are the stories that day in and day out represent your newspaper both online and in-print. And, at many newspapers, these stories are frequently written by the same reporters. As a result, you have a real opportunity to make a lasting impact in how these stories are reported, written and presented.

The idea is not to get a group in a room and select a scapegoat to blame for story or package’s weaknesses; this is supposed to be a learning experience. My suggestion is to limit it to the key players, yourself, the reporter(s), the photographer(s) and, if necessary, the photo editor. I’ve left out designers and copy editors because, in many cases, they come in later in the process. I would not open it up to the newsroom in general and I would not encourage attendance from anyone higher up (although I recognized that at times, that is beyond any of our control). Make sure those who will be attending know about it the day before; I’m not a big fan of rude surprises.

OK, so we’ve identified which stories deserve this treatment and who should be in attendance, now what?

First off, I would suggest that you have the reporter take notes. The reason for this is that a single-page write-up should come out of this experience and it make sense for it to be from the story’s author. This will become a reference document for future stories as well as something to reference during evaluation season.

Secondly, I would start the discussion with what the initial vision was for the story. With that context, talk about what worked, what we would do again in the future and any lessons we can draw (call it the “Supernanny” approach. Show fans, you know what I’m talking about). From there I would move on to those aspects we would want to do differently. What didn’t work and how could we approach those aspects differently.

Before wrapping up the meeting, get the reporter (or if relevant, the photographer) to review what’s worth repeating and what’s worth changing. Thank everyone for coming and giving of their time and remind the reporter to type of the notes distribute them to the participants.

I make it sounds simple, don’t I? Well it’s not, but it is a straightforward approach and, believe it or not, you can do it within 20 minutes. Actually, set a clock and stick to it. You will find the tighter the review, the more focused it will be, the more people will enjoy it and the more they will get out of it.

Not convinced? Try it and then let me know what you think.