Not every print item should go on the Web

Posted by on . 11 comments.

Newspapers and Web sites are two different mediums and should be treated as such.

Every newspapers has at least a few features, stories or other items that don’t translate well to the Web. If print products don’t make sense on the Web, don’t put them on the Web. We make Web products that clearly don’t make it into the print product, and the same logic applies the Web.

I know this sounds like blasphemy, but it’s not that difficult. The purpose of a Web site is not to make a digital version of the print product or to archive the print product. It’s purpose is to augment and expand print coverage. It’s purpose is to take your news brand and your talent and make a product that could stand on its own — a product that is centered around the medium it is on.

Most newspapers have at least a few features that serve one purpose: to take up space. I know people hate to admit this, but not every inch of editorial content is there to serve the reader. Some of it is to take up space and fit around ads.

The “man on the street” features are often prime offenders. You don’t need to put those features on the Web. There is no space to fill up.

In fact, the more you put on your Web site, the less the rest of your content stands out. The last thing any newspaper would want to do is drown out the quality stories and features with filler content. Most newspaper Web sites suffer from the Wall of News — something that is to be avoided at all costs.

The solution is simple: be judicious with what you put in your Web product, be willing to rework content to make it Web friendly and make Web exclusive content. Your two products don’t have to mirror each other in content. They should each do what they do best.

The best news organizations have a synergy between their products. In the coming years, the best newspapers will have in-depth analysis pieces in their print products, great feature stories and second-day pieces that look at news from a different angle, while the Web product will provide breaking news, databases, multimedia, two-way communication and other Web content that the Web excels at.

  • http://jeffcroft.com/ Jeff Croft

    Although I can appreciate the general idea you’re suggesting here, I’m not sure I agree that “man on the street” items are not web-worthy. This is a perfect eample of the type of thing people love to comment on, thushelping build a community around your site and increasing repeat traffic.

    At the Lawrence Journal-World (where I worked until about five months ago), our man on the street items were often amongst the most commented pieces of content.

  • http://www.ryansholin.com Ryan Sholin

    The trick, which Jeff’s comment highlights, is balancing information with participation. Pat, you’re right, the man on the street is pretty inconsequential stuff, but if that’s the spark that gets your online readers yammering about the issue at hand, then you’ve done your job to drive conversation.

    Then again, when you say “…while the Web product will provide breaking news, databases, multimedia, two-way communication and other Web content…” you must realize that making these things easier for newsroom staff is the only way to achieve those goals. My advice is to not take that task lightly. Differentiating your Web and print products only works if the newsroom is excited about both.

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    Jeff, I think it depends on the feature. Some “man on the street” features can be good and can be good talking points for papers. However, they are often crutches for editors. I know of one paper that does the same kind of feature every day, just going in their coverage area asking inane questions.

    The questions were not like the ones the Journal-World asks. They were often silly and meant to be jokes, but people don’t connect with that. I think it’s different if you use the feature to actually connect with readers, and ask things that are on people’s minds, but many papers don’t, They use those features to take up space in the print edition.

    Plus, you have to keep in mind that most newspapers sites do not allow people to comment on stories. If you placed the Journal-World’s “man on the street” feature on a site without comments, it would pretty dull. Without allowing everyone in on the conversation, as a good commenting system does, it doesn’t serve the community well.

    This is the kind of question I wished more “man on the street” features asked: Do you think universities should prohibit all peer-to-peer file sharing to stop illegal downloading?

    Now that’s a conversation starter.

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    Ryan, I completely agree that making my goals easier for the newsroom staff is the only way to achieve those goals. The publisher and top editors must buy in. Journalism isn’t changed from the ground up — it’s from the top down.

    You can’t do video unless you have cameras, software and training in the budget. You can’t do databases unless you hire someone to create them or give an existing employee training. Employees also must be given time to do these new tasks. They can’t just be expected to find time to do even more work.

    And even if you get the right equipment, people and training, there must be a synergy between the Web and print products. Top editors most make sure thy have buy in from their newsrooms. The easiest way to make changes is when everyone is on board. That may not be possible, but certainly making it as easy as possible on your staff will make the transition smoother.

    I will say that most of these goals have not been achieved at my paper, and who knows if they ever will be. But we should change.

  • http://jeffcroft.com/ Jeff Croft

    “Plus, you have to keep in mind that most newspapers sites do not allow people to comment on stories. If you placed the Journal-World’s “man on the street” feature on a site without comments, it would pretty dull. Without allowing everyone in on the conversation, as a good commenting system does, it doesn’t serve the community well.”

    So then, a more appropriate lesson than “you don’t need to put all your content on the web,” might be “if you’re going to put it on the web, make sure it servers your paper, your website, your readers, and your advertisers well.” In other words, if you’ve got content that doesn’t translate well to you web, as you put it, find a way to make it such that it does. This won’t always be possible — and I do agree that there are times when content is simply not appropriate for the web and can be left off — but in general, your first strategy ought to be to find a way to make that content useful to your online steakholders, before you simply toss it out.

  • http://jeffcroft.com/ Jeff Croft

    Or, a shorter way to respond to this…

    “Plus, you have to keep in mind that most newspapers sites do not allow people to comment on stories.”

    …would be to say, “well, add some damn comments already, then.”

    :)

  • http://www.scribblesheet.co.uk JohnofScribblesheet

    Agreed. The internet is a medium as different as radio to TV. Its not about copying and pasting from the newspaper to the website. Well argued.

  • http://www.yonigreenbaum.com Yoni Greenbaum

    Pat – I don’t disagree that newspapers should be “judicious” with what they put on their, but I do thank the targets should be primarily wire content. Most of the newspapers, including those of some of your commentors, are local newspapers. Readers, I would argue, are going to these sites for local news, not necessarily what is happening on the other side of the world or even the country. Most of us can’t complete on a national or international scale with the 24-hour news channels or the major newspaper websites. But we can compete when it comes to local. So I recommend be judicious, but even more so, be local.

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    Yoni, I agree with you statement and have written about how wire content often hurts sites. People do not come to local news sites to get commoditized content. That’s just a fact of life, and yet countless papers have lots of wire content on their home pages.

    That’s great way to distract from your own content, and it often contributes to the Wall of News. Being local is great advice.

    Let’s take these two thoughts and put them together: If newspapers get rid of most of their wire content and are more judicious with what they post on the Web sites, not only would they have a more attractive product and thus more viewers, but they’d also save money. Why pay for wire content that your readers don’t even want?

  • http://www.yonigreenbaum.com Yoni Greenbaum

    Pat, you have a deal.

  • http://none Ted McGee

    Information is good to use if you a journalist of any sort. I am a big journalist at a smaller publication and everyday we use information in different ways. Thank you.