Adapt to New Technology or Die

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that in a recent speech to fellow stationers and newspaper makers, Rupert Murdoch has stated that the 'newspaper industry needs to embrace the technological revolution of the Internet, MP3 players, laptops and mobile phones or face extinction.'"

Comments

And Then

[ackthpt]

The greatest challenge for the traditional media now is to engage with more demanding, questioning and better educated consumers, adapting their products for new technology, the Australian-born media mogul said.

"There is only one way. That is by using our skills to create and distribute dynamic, exciting content," he said.

And then the self made man was struck by lightning.

Seriously, with all the crap this guy has ushered into media, he can say "questioning and better educated consumers" with a straight face?

Ok, all that aside, I think he's about 6 years late with that rhetoric. Most media are already edging, some hesitantly, others a bit faster, toward embracing new technologies. The core problem is how to make a buck at it. Traditional channels have done very well for him. I can't see them entirely going away.

Re:And Then

[ackthpt]

If I'm not mistaken, the guy who said this is CEO (or president or something) of News Corp (owns Fox and whatnot), so I think his word should be quite influential to the other broadcasting companies like Time Warner, Turner Broadcasting, Disney, etc.

Yeah, but remember, this guy made his fortune before the internet came along.

Remember Edison talking trash against Tesla? Calling Alternating Current the Devil's something-or-other? Edison was already a success, but felt certain Direct Current was the way to the future. Bugger all the great inventor know about resistance.

I'm not saying he's an idiot, I just think he's waxing enthusiastic on a technology he really doesn't understand, even after 6 or more years. Some companies do well in it and others founder.

I like the internet for instant news, but would I pay for it? No. There's too many free outlets.

Do I click on ads? Once in a while, but most of them are rubbish or things I have no interest in anyway. Perhaps better linking stories to advertising would serve them better. If I'm reading about death in a car bombing I don't think I'm going to be in a mood to look at the new Fords.

I'm kinda afraid of this.

[AnonymousPrick]

FTFA: But -- and this is a very big but -- newspapers will have to adapt as their readers demand news and sport on a variety of platforms: websites, iPods, mobile phones or laptops.

What I see happening is that information is being broken down more and more into sound bites and geared more towards the intended audience. For example, you'll hear a completely different take on a story say from Fox as you would from Salon.com. That's assuming they even cover the same stories all the time.

There's only a few folks who will actually want to read the whole story - whatever it might be. And there's even fewer media outlets that will come out and actually state their leanings. The only one that comes to mind is "The Economist" (they state quite often that they are "a conservative newspaper.").

Re:I'm kinda afraid of this.

[AnotherDaveB]

The only one that comes to mind is "The Economist" (they state quite often that they are "a conservative newspaper.").

Disclaimer - I subscribe to The Economist's online edition, and I think it's a very good publication. (The FT's probably better.:) )

If by 'conservative' you mean ' [USA] conservative republican', I think you're mistaken. The Economist is primarily a 'free trade' supporter. That very often leads to common cause with the political right, but the allegiance is to 'free trade'

Another Disclaimer - I let my print subscription to The Economist lapse during the early part of President GW Bush's first term as US President as I thought they had lost sight of this, and their USA coverage was offering fawning paeans to the White House, rather than the [wry] analysis I was paying for.

The quote below is taken from The Economist's website, so it's their philosophy in their own words.

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as--more recently--gun control and gay marriage.

Lastly, The Economist believes in plain language. Walter Bagehot, our most famous 19th-century editor, tried "to be conversational, to put things in the most direct and picturesque manner, as people would talk to each other in common speech, to remember and use expressive colloquialisms". That remains the style of the paper today.

Established in 1843 to campaign on one of the great political issues of the day, The Economist remains, in the second half of its second century, true to the principles of its founder. James Wilson, a hat maker from the small Scottish town of Hawick, believed in free trade, internationalism and minimum interference by government, especially in the affairs of the market. Though the protectionist Corn Laws which inspired Wilson to start The Economist were repealed in 1846, the newspaper has lived on, never abandoning its commitment to the classical 19th-century Liberal ideas of its founder.

The Corn Laws, which by taxing and restricting imports of corn made bread expensive and starvation common, were bad for Britain. Free trade, in Wilson's view, was good for everyone. In his prospectus for The Economist, he wrote: "If we look abroad, we see within the range of our commercial intercourse whole islands and continents, on which the light of civilisation has scarce yet dawned; and we seriously believe that free trade, free intercourse, will do more than any other visible agent to extend civilisation and morality throughout the world - yes, to extinguish slavery itself."

Wilson's outlook was, therefore, moral, even civilising, but not moralistic. He believed "that reason is given to us to sit in judgment over the dictates of our feelings." Reason convinced him in particular that Adam Smith was right, that through its invisible hand the market benefited profit-seeking individuals (of whom he was one) and society alike. He was himself a manufacturer and wanted especially to influence "men of business". Accordingly, he insisted that all the arguments and propositions put forward in his paper should be subjected to the test of facts. That was why it was called The Economist.

The Google Way

[RunFatBoy.net]

Traditional media needs to take a que or two from Google.

Sergey Brin made the statement once that you need to innovate on all levels including business models. When Google first launched they were just like any other startup, cool technology but no profit model. He was determined to have a profitable business and thus Google Adwords was born.

The point is this; the migration of print media isn't about just transitioning the text from a paper page to a website. It's about knowing the context of the environment (e.g. interactive) and finding ways to embrace that environment so that the consumer benefits (e.g. more knowledge, entertained, etc) and profits are sustained.

Re:BLEA

[Anonymous Coward]

Adapt to new anologies or die!

Paper Delivery

[ackthpt]

The biggest reason that newspapers have it so tough is that the delivery person keeps throwing my newspaper down the hallway. Not near my door, not even at my door, but down the hallway. On Sunday mornings, I find my paper at the bottom of the stairs after the ads been rifled through. Customer service is what needed to save the newspaper industry!

Must be past the end of the Paper Boy Era.

When I was in my late teens I inherited my older brother's paper route. It was somewhere about 65 customers. As this was my main source of income I took a particularly aggressive view towards growing and maintaining the route. In 3.3 years I had it up to 150+ customers, much to the annoyance of paper boys of neighbouring routes. My parents always sent me out with our paper, just in case I saw someone moving into a new house -- I'd introduce myself and give them the paper free and ask if I could sign them up. I was breaking my back, but I was also raking in some decent cash for a highschool kid. I made certain papers weren't left in wet or could be blown away or anything. When I retired and left for college the newspaper said it was too large a route for any one carrier and split it.

Now people drive past and chuck papers in the general vicinity of doors. I know what you mean.

Dear Rupert

[pandrijeczko]

Tens of thousands of years ago, a scruffy bloke with long hair who smelt of rabbit skins & said "Ugh!" rather a lot, was sat in his cave pondering a particular problem - how to move a very heavy rock from point A on the Earth's surface to point B. Although this bloke wasn't to know it at the time, he had to find a way of overcoming the friction that the rock exerted on the Earth's surface due to it's mass and surface area.

Perhaps more by luck than chance, he found that if he could lever up the rock and place cylindrical logs under it, he could move it...

Some time later, another bloke less pre-disposed to living in a cave, decided to create circular discs, probably of wood, that could be placed in each corner of a heavy object by connecting them in order to move it easier - and so it was that "the wheel" was born...

And as we leap forward through the millenia to our present day, we see that the concept of the wheel remains fundamentally unchanged - it's still circular, probably has an axle and is best used in numbers of four or more.

The wheel, and numerous other technological developments over the centuries, serve to demonstrate that some inventions can be pretty much designed correctly from the time of their inception without the "need" to replace it completely purely for the purposes of technical advancement.

Besides, as the owner of "The Sun" newspaper in Britain, a journal aimed specifically at those modern-day individuals who are pre-disposed to cavemanhood & writing with crayons, can I suggest that you, sir, are a complete and utter gobshite who is totally out of his depth and has far too much money for his own good.

In summary, therefore, may I suggest that you continue publishing stories about "Lesbian Vicars" for those knucklescrapers who continue to find amusement for their unicellular brains in your newspaper & leave those of us who are more pre-disposed to understanding technology to make decisions about whether we still want paper newspapers or not.