I started my career as a newspaperman, became a Silicon Valley CEO, and work today as a consultant helping media companies understand technology and helping technology companies understand the media. Here’s what I have learned:   

The talented people in these seemingly disparate industries are remarkably alike, but the cultures of the businesses are completely different. And here is why this matters:   

The tradition-bound and risk-averse nature of the newspaper culture is the single greatest reason publishers are losing readers and revenues while competing digital products run circles around them.   

With new technologies, media formats, and business models emerging at an ever-quickening pace, newspapers must learn to think and act like start-ups — or risk falling to the margins of the media world.  

In other words, newspapers need some fresh DNA that will make them think and act more like techies and less like, well, newspaper people. The good news for newspapers is they have an abundance of the most important asset every business needs: great people.   

Just like tech companies, newspapers are filled with exceptionally large numbers of highly intelligent, highly creative, and highly motivated individual contributors whose ideas, talents, and egos must be channeled efficiently into creating a product that not even the brightest among them could produce on his or her own.  

Although the people working at newspapers and tech companies are more similar than you would think, their business cultures are polar opposites of each other. 

Newspapers are all about faithfully and efficiently producing a well-defined product according to time-honored standards and procedures. In other words, the culture values tradition, consistency, and predictability, which, by definition, are inhospitable to change — particularly the sort of disruptive change that the Web, mobile, and social media require.  

Newspaper folk essentially come to work every day to do their best to fully optimize a product that serves a clearly identified audience, that has a clearly defined revenue model, and that, until the last few years, has been a stunningly profitable business.  

Tech companies — which are unencumbered by tradition, institutional inertia, and frequently even a clearly defined product for the first few years — are created expressly to do something that no one else has done before.  

When techies come to work, everyone in the company — from engineers to marketers to salespeople — is eager to debate such fundamental questions as: What’s our product? Who will buy it? How will we sell it? How will we make money? The debate persists (almost to a maddening degree) until the product is launched — and generally continues afterward, especially if the marketplace fails to embrace the offering with sufficient zeal. Techies will tinker until they either get it right or run out of venture capital.  

Although everyone marvels at how Microsoft, Google, and Facebook rocked the world, the preponderance of tech start-ups actually fail, because they prove to be far less clever than the founders and funders thought they would be. But failure is an option in Silicon Valley, because you learn as much from hitting the wall as from succeeding. Maybe even more.  

It takes a certain mindset to take the entrepreneurial plunge. Techies embrace uncertainty and shrug off failure in a way that would unhinge most ordinary people. They are perfectly happy blowing up what they did the day before to try a better (or at least different) idea.   

This sort of restless and relentless experimentation has produced all the technologies that have changed the way consumers get and give media — and the way advertisers increasingly are attempting to reach customers. A good deal of the success of digital media has come at the expense of newspapers, which simply have not acted rapidly or boldly enough to create products and services to meet the needs of modern readers and advertisers.  

Publishers have not failed to embrace disruptive experimentation because they are not smart enough to do so. Their businesses historically were so successful that they didn’t need, or want, to change them. Consequently, risk-taking and experimentation are not prominent in the industry ethos.   

Newspapers now must find new ways to cost-effectively create content; build new Web, mobile, and social audiences; and monetize their traffic as profitably as Facebook and Google do.   

To do that, they will have to bring the creative chaos of Silicon Valley into every corner of their businesses. This means launching multiple, carefully planned initiatives across the full array of print and digital media. To be sure, this must be done with discipline and care.  

Sometimes newspapers will get it right. Sometimes they will get it wrong. And, every now and then they will hit a home run. But they won’t win if they don’t play.  

Alan D. Mutter teaches media economics and entrepreneurism at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California-Berkeley and blogs at Reflections of a Newsosaur (Newsosaur.Blogspot.com).

Comments

Right On Target!

Gregory Clay | Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Alan,
I have followed your blog for several months and I'm glad you finally came back from the dark side.
Our industry needs this type of commentary.

Newspapers Can Learn From Tech Companies' Near-Death Experiences

Paul Gillin | Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Alan's message is right on, and his background in the technology industry is relevant to this discussion.
I posted an essay entitled "How to Save Local Newspapers" about 16 months ago (http://bit.ly/mg8RkY) in which I drew an analogy to the near-death experiences that some big technology companies encountered in the 1990s and their successful strategies to reinvent themselves. Some of the same principles can be adopted by news publishers. A clip from that essay:
"More than 20 years ago, many computer companies faced the same kind of near-death experience that confronts newspaper publishers today. Their core hardware products, which generated 80% margins, were suddenly assaulted by cheap, standardized components. Many of these companies died or were acquired, but a few, like IBM and Hewlett-Packard, took the strong medicine that was necessary to transform themselves. Today, IBM derives more than half of its revenue from services, a revenue stream that barely even existed 20 years ago. Its 2008 revenue was a record $103 billion. HP made the shift even earlier. Twenty years ago, it was less than one-fifth IBM’s size. In 2009, it was bigger than IBM."
News publishers can reinvent themselves, but the task involves drinking some bitter medicine, downsizing and being willing to think creatively about new revenue streams.

DNA has nothing to do with it ...

stephen mindich | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

there are many, many innovators working in the newspaper world/environment ... the biggest problems for newspapers (other pubs as well) has been how to convince advertisers of their continuing value, maintaining/or gaining reasonable margins from the advertising they get - probably the single biggest mistake that newspapers (and other content creators) made was to give away what makes them unique - their content on-line - with no subsequent generally successful means of putting that genie back in the bottle - but a lack of entrepreneurial, quick thinking - "tech-type" brains is not where the industry's difficult issues reside.

Newspaper Lifer

Phx Innovator | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

I've worked in the industry for 31 years. I work for a progressive and innovative organization that has embraced technology as a way to the future. We have used e-reader devices in our organization from the originator, and continue to seek out ways to drive business. I have found it disconcerting that organizations such as mine utilize the printed product as a tool to drive customers to our varied websites and social pages, without reciprocation. This is done in my estimation to kill a very expensive venture, printed news. Unfortunately I believe that destroying a printed product will have a negative impact on web based information and social media sites owned by the same organization in the same market. Exposure is king. I believe that using the printed product to identify trends, reach out to communities, and provide nation, local, business, sports and entertainment news is critical. However, a balance must be struck in product development to allow for quick and continual changes to the product to adapt to an ever changing market. Exceptional demographic and geographic data, customer surveys and studies, market behaviors, and social economic status data are critical. All of this information is readily available, yet even when realized, it is rarely used. The question, “what do we do about it?” falls into the dark abyss, not unlike many other industries that have failed to recognize trends.

RE: DNA Transplant

John P | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

1) Paywalls aren't the answer. I quit reading the NY Times and Dallas Morning News when the established a paywall.
2) Most of the newspaper editors need to be fired. They are not in tune with what is going on out here. Most large ones are in urban areas where there is a large minority populations. Their content is overwhelmingly white oriented.
3) more multimedia, pics are needed.
4) Too much AP content. You see the same content on all these websites.
5) Most of these journalist are not very good. They don't have the depth of expeience necessary to write good pieces. They are from suburban, mostly white backgrounds and haven't worked in other fields outside of journalism.

Let Those Who Have Ears ...

SouthernWrit | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Excellent observation -- and one that can only be made by someone OUTSIDE the newspaper industry.
When I left the newspaper business in 2005, I was amazed at how a lifetime in that culture had affected my perspective and opinion about almost everything around me. After awhile adjusting to a corporate culture, I was able to actually see the world around me in a different way.
Newsrooms are breeding grounds for creating like-minded clones who can see things from only one perspective. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing to any noticeable degree. The same fear that has always caused newsrooms to adapt slowly to change is now embedded so deeply in the culture that it affects every facet of their operation, including hiring only those like-minded clones.
Don't believe me? Check out a few "help wanted" ads for newspaper publishers — they all want the same candidates with the same qualifications and the same experience. Of course, this will only fetch the same treadmill results they always get -- just a different hamster on the wheel.

Newspapers aren't tech companies

Kent Ford | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Must newspapers abandon their role as delivering the most effective form of advertising to the local market ever invented?
Why go totally digital, abandon the biggest source of revenue on the balance sheet and watch some other company come into the market and start up a print newspaper to serve print advertising to local businesses?
Newspapers -- the true mass medium -- already can do all that stuff mentioned in this piece, plus print a newspaper!

NYT Incubator

Digital Dionne | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

So are you of the belief that this NYT in-office start up incubator is the right direction?
@DigitalDionne

Add Comment