In June, Politico published an opinion piece by Jack Shafer essentially blaming readers for the problems with local news. As he put it:
"Despite all the impassioned calls from academics and journalists to salvage it, local news’ most vital constituency—readers—have withheld their affections.
In 2009, just as the apocalypse befell the newspaper industry but while local news was still in relative abundance, many readers gave it an apathetic shrug. A Pew Research Center survey from that year found that an astonishing 42 percent said they would miss their paper “not much” or “not at all” if it vanished. ... A more recent Pew survey (2018) found that only 14 percent of respondents had paid for local news in the previous year."
My first reaction is that the piece suffers from the same thing newspapers have for decades - never bothering to define local news, other than it being, you know, "local." Whether in print or online, too many organizations still look at themselves as covering a wide breadth of topics - local government, politics, education, sports, business, entertainment, and essentially anything that fits under the "man bites dog" ethos.
But that only works when options are limited.
In fact, there is a tremendous demand for local news, it's just that it is no longer delivered by a single source - i.e. the local newspaper. Rather, readers get news from all manner of outlets from the formal (weeklies, business journals, TV, public radio) to the informal (school newsletters, neighborhood sites, your city councilperson, the Google search app on your phone).
The challenge for any local publisher today is to ruthlessly determine what they are going to be known for and consistently work to deliver that in content, user experience, channel execution, and customer touchpoints.
Let's be honest - this is hard for a lot of journalists, particularly those who have spent time in traditional local news organizations. The act of truly prioritizing a few topics is antithetical to the idea of serving the community. Even Lookout Santa Cruz, from Ken Doctor, who has studied the evolution of local news as much as anyone, has a traditional breakdown of topics.
To build a distinct news brand and develop a real connection with an audience is to shed anything that is not the brand. That's not to say it has to be one thing, but it should be a well-defined short list of topics. Sadly, many legacy organizations are now down to just that - a shortlist - not because of strategic planning but rather the result of cuts in staff and resources.
A more narrow focus allows publishers to invest in developing new content, deliver it through the channels most suited to the mission, have a better understanding of and create a deeper connection with the audience, and build out revenue streams that benefit all the stakeholders and generate forward momentum.
Like so many other readers in the last few years, I decided to give the New York Times a try on one of their cheap introductory offers - $1 a week for 52 weeks. After a year I had to decide if I would continue, and for the last four months, I have. As a subscriber, I got an email with a new offering where I can now share 10 articles with people via email and social that allow non-subs to click through and read, regardless if they've met other paywall limits.
I think this is an excellent idea - if not totally new - for a few reasons. Most immediately, it takes away any hesitancy, which I have had in the past, about posting an article to share. And that posting becomes the simple and effective "word-of-mouth" social media, recommendation engines, and affiliate programs are built on today.
Additionally, it is part of a traditional paradigm that still has value. Even in print, newspapers worked to get issues into readers' hands in a variety of ways - subscriptions, single copy, sampling, bulk distribution, etc. While online subscriptions capture today's headlines, all these methods should be a part of a dynamic consumer funnel to introduce, nurture, and convert readers to loyal customers over time.