For years individual content producers in news organizations didn’t have an easy way to figure out how popular or useful their content was with people.

But with today’s advanced site analytics, content producers have unprecedented data about users and their surfing habits. I wrote a long post about this subject over at BeatBlogging.Org. Consider this post the Cliff Note’s version with a few added tidbits.

What makes this data so important?

With Web analytics, content creators like writers, bloggers, photographers, database developers, etc can find out which content is getting the most page views and visits and from where those visitors are coming from. Content creators can also find out which search terms most often land people on their content.

Analytics will allow for content producers to make content that is more appealing to their users. For a football beat, it might mean creating more previews and Q&A sessions and less feature stories. For an education blog, it might mean writing more about teachers’ issues and less about the school district as a whole.

It also might mean different kinds of content. Your users might prefer posts that are short and comprised of lists. My users might prefer longer paragraphs. The only way to understand what our individual users want is to track their browsing habits.

The timing of posts is also extremely critical, and this varies per beat per news organization:

In general, after lunch and after work are the two peak times for Web traffic. This, however, is not universal, and detailed Web analytics will allow content producers to know the peak times to release content on their Web sites. In fact, different beat blogs at the same paper might have different peak traffic times.

Now, not every news organization allows content producers access to this information. In fact, most may not, but the content producers I have spoken to almost uniformly say it has helped them do their jobs better. Every news organization worth anything already has detailed site analytics.

It doesn’t cost a company money to give more people access to this information, but site analytics can be complicated and hard to understand without training. Some newsrooms have come up with ways of getting around that.

Suzanne Yada said her newspaper, the Visalia Times-Delta, has a daily meeting at 3 p.m. to discuss traffic figures and which stories are getting the most page views. Ryan Sholin says at the last paper he worked at he sent out a daily “Top 5.” Sholin said, however, that bloggers had full access to their stats.

Whether a news organization gives access to this data to every content producer or whether a news organization has a meeting or e-mail to discuss Web traffic, it doesn’t matter. What ultimately matters is that news organizations give content producers vital information that will allow them to do their jobs better.

To all my blogging readers, could you imagine blogging blind? That’s essentially what many news organizations are asking their content producers to do.

If your company doesn’t allow content producers access to this information, I have a question for you. Why doesn’t your company give individual content producers information about the content they produce?

Debra J. Sanders of the dieing San Francisco Chronicle recently wrote an inane column about why the death of newspapers will be the death of us all.

And I quote:

Blah, blah, blah. You need us (newspaper people, who only write for print) to keep democracy going. Blah, blah, blah we made the mistake of giving away news on the Web. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, people have to pay for news. Blah, blah, blah, you all should be ashamed of the fact that you no longer subscribe to newspapers. Blah, blah, blah.

You want to know why the Chronicle is losing boatloads of money? Because they waste money on columns like this!

Now to debunk the utter crap like Sanders wrote. First, newspapers make money off of ads, not subscriptions and newsstand sales. Get that straight.

I pay less than $0.50 per Sunday issue of The Washington Post. It is delivered to my apartment. Do you really think that huge newspapers, complete with Sunday magazines, delivered to me with record gas prices really cost less than $0.50? Are you out of your mind?

It’s the ads within that make money. And the real problem is that most newspaper ad and business staffs don’t know how to sell ads online. They completely and utterly suck at that part of their jobs.

And why should they be good at selling ads online? Most ad reps are paid heavily by commission. And what ads bring the biggest commission? Huge, national print ads!

What kinds of ads don’t work so well on Web sites? Huge, national banner ads! What kinds of ads have been the back bone of newspapers for years? Classifieds!

And what have newspapers really, really sucked at on the Web? Making quality classified ad systems for the Web. This isn’t rocket science.

Craigslist came about because newspapers willfully neglected classified advertising on the Web. Remember that.

You know why most newspapers are getting crushed on the Web? You really want to know why? Because most employees at newspapers — especially business employees — just don’t get it. They don’t get it.

And you know what? They aren’t going to get it. It’s not going to happen.

The newspaper business needs fresh ideas. It needs people who are willing to take risks and think outside of the box. Writing columns like Sanders does that blame readers for the fall of newspapers is the worst possible use of our time and resources.

If I was the publisher of the Chronicle, my first money-saving order of business would be to fire one Debra J. Sanders.

Because TwentySomethingJournalist.com just launched.

You know what the worst kind of journalist is? A twenty-something journalist.

You know what kind of journalist doesn’t respect the newspaperman myth? A twenty-something journalist.

You know what kind of journalist doesn’t respect the Paper God? A twenty-something journalist.

You know what kind of journalist is ruining journalism? A twenty-something journalist.

What will the kids these days think of next? A site dedicated to finding innovative ways of modernizing journalism? God Lord.

I received an e-mail today from a reader who had a story to share about being stifled by corporate and management. The good news for journalism is that this person isn’t down on journalism itself, just some journalism companies. Unfortunately, this is not a unique story in today’s journalism world:

I’m beginning to liken my job to that of working at McDonald’s. It’s your basic fast-food fare that feeds the same stuff everyday, and we’re stifled by corporate and management to do things their way without fail. It’s the same culture with a few people who want to do better.

During a recent natural disaster the site did very with direct traffic, garnering more than 1 million page views. The site normally does about 200,000 a day. 1 million sounds pretty good, but it could have been more (updates on inclement weather are big traffic drivers):

Anyway, my boss (pretty much there for the paycheck and hours) decides not to stream our TV coverage because “he wanted to have our helicopter coverage without our station’s bug). People come to our site during work and they sure don’t have TVs in their offices, so why wouldn’t they expect to have our breaking news coverage streaming, too. We’ve done it for every other event where I’ve been working. That takes me back to my analogy. I feel like my bosses were satisfied because they got an extra Big Mac in their combo when I feel we could have had a steak.

Note: I have edited this post at the request of the original author to protect their identity better.

More and more talented journalists (often young) are leaving journalism for other industries.

Not because they fear being laid off or fired, but because the culture at newspapers (especially newspaper corporations) doesn’t allow for the kind of innovation necessary to save newspapers. Case in point: Braden Nicholson left the Indianapolis Star because corporate knew how to ruin every good idea:

You know what is a bummer about this? When INTake was first launched, the young men and women working there were so stoked that some of them actually slept on the office floor rather than take a break at home. It used to be fashionable for older journalists to bitch about young reporters not having “fire in the belly.” Well, these kids had fire in the belly.

Braden said it best. Corporate doused the fire.

Newspapers need that enthusiasm and fire to save themselves. This is do-or-die time for newspapers. This is not the time for red tape and bureaucracy.

Perhaps even more illuminating than Nicholson leaving journalism for another industry, is the comments left on the Gannett Blog. The first comment — anonymous, of course — has all the hallmarks of a curmudgeon that is shouting down new ideas (the kind of newsroom cancers that are killing newspapers):

Many of us at Indy are pleased to see Braden leave the Star. He was an arrogant kid who believed that he was smarter than the rest of us here.

Yes, at 29, Nicholson is certainly a kid. Another classy comment that wreaks of a curmudgeon:

IndyStar is full of a bunch of punks who think they are all innovators. I left there recently and always believed these little shit-stains were all immature.

On the other hand, we have comments about why people left Gannett because of curmudgeons:

I left the company a number of months ago and for good reason. If I were 20 years older, I would have been just fine, but because I wasn’t, the EE thought it necessary to let me know I wouldn’t be “respected.” (The same guy who no one respects in that newsroom).

Looks like this poison spreads in all Gannett newsrooms. I always thought Greenville was just unique. This attitude toward young people (aka future editors) will be the death knell of Gannett. Eventually the last 50-year-old will leave and there will be no one left to take their place.

I have heard of Gannett having cancerous newsrooms before. My girlfriend left a mid-size daily Gannett newspaper because of the newsroom culture (ageism and sexism abound). And I’ve heard it from other people about other Gannett newspapers.

This isn’t a unique Gannett problem, but corporate has to get its act together. Each newsroom should be a laboratory for innovation. That means corporate has to stop inhibiting innovation.

Yes, it is a tough time for journalism graduates — or anyone looking for a journalism job — but there are jobs available for people with desirable skills.

Recent journalism graduate Kyle Hansen just accepted a job at the Las Vegas Sun. More noteworthy, is that in this terrible time for journalism companies and the economy, he had interviews in five different states with newspapers. Five different states.

What skills does Hansen have that most recent journalism graduates don’t? Well, for starters, he blogs. It doesn’t have to be the best or most popular blog, but having a blog shows potential employers that Hansen is willing to try out new tools and that he has an understanding of the power of blogging.

Hansen also has multimedia skills, which include some knowledge of video editing, Flash and Web design. No one is saying that Hansen needs to be an expert in any of those areas, but the simple fact that he is inquisitive is a major plus for employers.

Not only can he write (which every journalism graduate should be able to do), but Hansen also has Web and multimedia skills. People like him will find employment.

The average, run-of-the-mill journalism graduate will have a tough time finding employment, especially at a desirable destination like the Sun, which is arguably the most desirable journalism destination in the U.S. right now. But journalists with modern skill sets are still in demand.

And it’s never too late to update your skill set.

Timothy Kennedy, the publisher of The Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., announced 35-40 layoffs yesterday at the 110,000-circulation newspaper.

But that’s not the real lede for me. In the middle of his memo he writes, “More than ever our financial results reflect the broken business model of the past.”

I agree with him that the old business model that newspapers operated under is broken. Many people agree with that. What I don’t see, however, is a new business model in his memo.

All I see are layoffs. Oh, and, a closing of a few bureaus, and some crap about changing the zoning of the print editions.

But how does Kennedy plan on growing revenue? How does Kennedy plan on monetizing the Web better? How does Kennedy plan on making The Morning Call a more relevant news source in the 21st century?

So, what’s the new business model of the future, besides laying off 40 employees? Oh I know, laying off 40 more 6 months from now. Got it.

Layoffs are not a business model.

I want to relate a story from two years ago about a missed opportunity at a 25,000-circulation daily newspaper.

I was talking with the top editors at this newspaper about my Web experience and some of my thoughts on what newspapers needed to do to make themselves more competitive on the Web. The question of money always arises, however.

How do we pay for this? Who funds research and development? How do we convince the publisher and owner to loosen the purse strings?

The editor in chief had an idea how to pay for some innovation at her paper. The problem was the owner. He didn’t see a need to spend money on the Web.

Contrary to popular belief, working for a family-owned newspaper is not always better than working for a corporate one. The owner, an older gentlemen, had decided his paper needed a new printing press — a $20 million facility.

The editor in chief suggested that he make some sacrifices with the printing press and instead divert some of that money to R&D for the Web site. She reasoned that even $500,000 — 1/40th of the money — would make a big difference at their modest newspaper.

She was unable to persuade the owner to spend some money on R&D for new media. That was in 2006, when the industry was in considerably better shape.

I bet the owner really regrets that decision now. And I’m sure the editor in chief realizes what a massive missed opportunity that was.

In 2006, the housing market was booming in the Cleveland area, but since then the housing market has collapsed and the economy has been hit hard. Now that paper — like papers all over the country — are forced with hard decisions on what to cut to bring expenses down.

It’s tough to justify spending money on R&D when many papers have to make drastic cuts, especially in an area like the Web, where newspapers traditionally have not made much money, if any at all. The economy will get better, and ad revenue will climb again.

The best time to invest in the future is when things are going well. Don’t expect the good times to last forever. Many newspapers did nothing until things got really bad.

Things will get better. And when profit margins are their fatest, we should invest the most in the future. Let’s learn from the past to make the future better.

We have to learn from our mistakes, or else we’re doomed to repeat them.

I am strongly disappointed by the out-right negativity permeating through journalism right now.

The anger, the negativity, the we-can’t attitude hit a flash point on an intern’s post about job cuts and a newsroom reorganization. Yes, grown-up journalists were using an intern as a punching bag.

If you don’t believe journalism can be turned around, leave now. Find a new career. A prerequisite for success is believing in yourself.

Enthusiastic, bright-eyed, thoughtful and energetic interns and journalism students — the kinds of people we’ll need to turn this industry around — are being told to find a new career by angry journalists. Jessica DaSilva has encountered this in several internships:

Another problem I (and my peers) have encountered in internships is an eagerness to turn us away from journalism or jade us in some way. We all wonder why. I mean, if we all followed the popular mantra of “go to law school and make your mother proud,” then what would be the future of journalism?

Discouraging people who want to save journalism is not going to help us save journalism. And trust me, journalism needs to be saved. But it can only be saved by people who believe that journalism can and will thrive.

Do you believe?

I believe in journalism. In fact, I think the Internet is the greatest thing to ever happen to journalism. Now people can interact with news.

People can have a voice. And reporters can embrace interacting with the community. That’s a powerful thing.

The Internet and the Web are fundamentally better at disseminating news and information than either print or broadcast. People have been voting with their eyeballs and dollars. As journalists, we need to be where people are.

Now, I’m not going to sit here and say every newsroom reorganization is going to be successful. Many — perhaps most — will not be. But I would rather try something new and risk the potential for failure — or success — than continue doing something that I know will fail.

And if most news organizations continue down the path they are on right now, they will fail. Change isn’t easy, but it’s the only way to turn things around. It’s important for news organizations to realize that innovation often requires a reallocation of resources.

It’s easier to believe that there is no solution, rather than come up with one. That’s an idea that is killing journalism. It’s an idea that sustains the curmudgeon tribe of journalists.

There are solutions and there have been Web success stories. CNET has become a powerful and successful force in tech news on the Web. CBS recently bought CNET for $1.8 billion.

Blog network and advocacy journalism innovator The Huffington Post is worth upwards of $100 million. TechCrunch has 3.2 million unique visitors and is ranked in the top 1,000 most visited sites in the world by Alexa. Not bad for tech blog staffed by a handful of employees.

All of these examples have one thing in common: They don’t look and operate like legacy media companies. They exploit the strengths of the medium they are working on. How many newspapers and legacy news organizations can say they have really exploited the Web as a medium?

Companies make money off the Web all the time. If journalism companies want to succeed on the Web they can. But that means making tough decisions.

It means cutting some legacy staff. It means reallocating resources. It means taking risks — sometimes huge risks.

All this talk about how journalism is a public service and how it protects democracy will mean nothing if we don’t believe in ourselves and take risks. The future of journalism depends on it.

I believe. Do you?

Are institutional memory and inertia killing the newspaper industry?

After reading the comments on a myriad of posts from journalists stuck in the past, I can’t help but think that there is no future for newspapers as long as the majority of their staffs (editorial and business) — and their collective institutional memories — are still around. Every change that is proposed, every new idea that is thought of, every staff cut that is made, is always compared to the old way of doing things.

The problem is that the old way of doing things for newspapers shares nothing in common with what 21st-century journalism is shaping up to be. What we are seeing is not a major change for the newspaper industry. It is a monumental rethinking of everything that newspapers have ever done.

This isn’t going from gas-powered cars to fuel cells. This is more akin to colonizing space.

And if you’re not prepared to colonize space, get the hell out of the way.