Newspapers' Taste Standards Get Loose Online

By: Steve Outing When the "Bay to Breakers" community road race in San Francisco was covered this year, SFGate.com, the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, ran a photo nude male runners -- showing their bare backsides -- prominently on the home page. (Naked people and bizarre costumes are a "normal" part of this huge annual foot race.) The print edition of the Chronicle took a more conservative approach, publishing photos of runners wearing underwear and fake fig leaves.

At Lawrence.com, an entertainment Web site operated by the Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World, editors once took a column by the newspaper's entertainment editor and republished it online. In the column, the author had used a number of profanities within quotes, which for the print edition used asterisks (e.g., "s***"). When the Web site editors published the story online, they edited the story to put the profanities back in -- including every letter of those four-letter words.

These newspaper Web sites and others apply far different taste standards online than in print -- even though the sites are operated by the same newspaper companies. Managers at SFGate.com report to the publisher of the Chronicle; the online director of Lawrence.com and related Web sites reports to the publisher of the Journal-World. But they are not required to live by the same standards as their print parents.

These sites take a more liberal approach to language because they target a different audience than do their respective print editions. To attract and serve a younger demographic, the sites must live by different rules. It's somewhat akin to cable television living by far different standards (frequent nudity and profanity on selected shows) than the traditional TV networks.

Let's take a further look at these two newspaper Web sites, which approach the issue of content standards a little differently, but both with the aim of being relevant to a younger audience for which the printed newspaper often is not relevant.

Community Standards in the City by the Bay

Not all content on the Chronicle's Web site is as "edgy" as Mark Morford's column. But Morford, the site's most popular columnist (who writes exclusively for the Web), signifies how far the site is willing to go to please an audience that is probably at least 10 years younger than the dead-trees Chronicle's. Morford writes in a free-flowing (some might call bizarre) style, often using colorful language and trying hard to be controversial; he comes from a clear liberal/left-wing viewpoint, which reflects much of San Francisco. Consider this recent Morford column:

"Penis extensions and butt implants and pec implants and calf implants and chin implants and cheek implants and eyelid slicings and nose smashings and chemical peels and enough silicone pumped into enough pneumatic boobs to fill Lake Michigan, and tongue splitting might be considered what, mutilation? Hmm."

Morford's editor is Vlae Kershner, SFGate's news editor for the last four years and a former political/government reporter for the Chronicle, who admits that Morford regularly goes beyond what would be acceptable in the print edition (which has yet to publish any of Morford's work). In general, the site has looser standards: It's a little less restrictive in terms of subject matter that its writers can tackle; more content of a sexual nature is OK. "But we do have lines that we don't cross," Kershner says.

Unlike Lawrence.com (detailed later in this column), SFGate.com typically avoids profanities or gives them the asterisk treatment. "Generally, we follow the newspaper's rules," says Kershner. "But we have said in the past, 'We think sex is fun, and we can have fun with it.'"

Photos deemed publishable on SFGate.com do go beyond what print-side editors would run, but only to a degree. In general, there's no frontal nudity (even with Bay to Breakers coverage), and the online staff has discussed such specifics as how far down to go on the female breast (not as far as exposing the nipple). The print Chronicle didn't run a photo of a fan groping the buttocks of entertainer Jennifer Lopez' wax statue at Madame Tussaud's in London, but SFGate.com did.

"We're a little bit more risque of a site than most other newspaper sites," says Kershner. "We try not to go beyond community standards of good taste. But community standards are different [in San Francisco] than other places."

Kershner often finds himself in the position of being arbiter of taste at the site. He takes each issue on a case-by-case basis, "and I say no to a lot of things." For instance, some columnists who get hate mail (including Morford) like to write about the nasty responses they get. But Kershner draws the line at, say, a columnist quoting a letter-writer saying "You flaming faggot!" and the like. "They argue that we should publish that because it shows the mentality of the people who are flaming us," but he feels that it's wrong to publish hate terms about gays, period.

Morford is the person who most pushes the envelope, and he and Kershner have worked out a relationship where Morford pushes and Kershner pushes back fairly often. "Yeah, I have to rein him in sometimes. ... But it's kind of fun in some ways. We have a good relationship," says Kershner.

Morford actually gets a little more latitude in the e-mail version of his column, which includes some stuff that's not available on the Web. The reasoning is that his subscribers have asked to get Morford's content, and they know what they're getting. Profanities and questionable-taste subject matter are a little more acceptable with an opt-in e-mail audience than a drop-in Web audience.

For now, the Chronicle is perhaps best typified by its star columnists, Matier & Ross, who write a popular city-politics column. (For many years before his death, Herb Caen was the Chronicle figurehead.) Online, it's Morford. "He's part of our identity," says Kershner. "He's part of what we are." (Before he became an online columnist, Morford was SFGate's home-page editor, where his creative talents were put to use writing headlines and giving the site a quirky feel.)

But despite the difference between Web site and newspaper, the two sides appear to be merging in terms of taste and tone, says Kershner. "We're closer to the Chronicle's standards than we were four years ago, when I started" working at the site, he says. In those days, there was no profanity rule, and overall the site was even looser than it is today. And the Chronicle, for its part, he says, is loosening up: "It's a more fun paper than it used to be."

SFGate's current tone is of course meant to appeal to a younger crowd than the print edition. As Kershner sees it, the site used to be programmed more like an alternative newspaper, but it's difficult to do that when you're affiliated with a mainstream daily metro. "My definition of an alternative publication is that it doesn't separate news from opinion," he says. "I do not feel using that definition that we are that type of publication. We want some of the flavor of an alternative publication, along with the accuracy and trustworthiness of a mainstream publication." That's why a controversial flaming left-winger like Morford runs alongside conservative political columnist Adam Sparks.

We're Not in Kansas Anymore

Aimed at attracting the late-teen/early-20s crowd in this University of Kansas town, Lawrence.com is the newest site developed by the talented team of the 12-person online department at the Lawrence Journal-World, led by Online General Manager Rob Curley. At this city-entertainment site (winner of the 2003 EPpy Award for Best Internet Entertainment Service -- under 1 million monthly visitors), the standards are a far cry from the newspaper's.

You won't see the f-word on the home page very often, but it has happened. And while the site's editors are cautious about using profanities, they are prepared to and allowed to when it's considered appropriate. Curley says his editorial crew met with the newspaper's top editors and banged out a profanity and taste policy for the site, which includes: Writers can use profanities when they are within a quote from a source; they are not allowed to use them when speaking in their own voices. The team was not worried about the AP Stylebook when setting standards for this site, says Curley.

The idea behind Lawrence.com is to be relevant to the college set. Curley says his team, working with the newspaper's entertainment editor, went in to the project knowing that they wanted to write and present information in a style that's reminiscent of what the audience regularly reads in print -- publications such as Rolling Stone, Maxim, and Blender, where coarse language isn't censored. Indeed, bleeping out profane words said by a rock performer is speaking down to the audience, says Curley. They know that people in the entertainment business speak that way. (Evidence: Kelly Osbourne in MTV's "The Osbournes" show.)

Is that a "responsible" approach to Web site content for a newspaper company? Curley justifies it in a couple of ways: First, "we won't leave in 'f-bombs' just for the sake of putting in profanity"; there's got to be a reason for keeping profanities in an article or audio/video clip. Second, it's different from showing a grisly photo or printing a profanity on the front page of a newspaper, where there's no advance warning to the reader about possibly objectionable content. Online, it's possible to alert readers ahead of time: "Warning: This article (or multimedia clip) contains explicit language."

While profanities occasionally find their way into Lawrence.com and the Journal-World's other Web sites, nudity generally does not. For instance, last year KUSports.com -- the newspaper's sports niche site for Kansas University athletics -- covered Playboy's "Girls of the Big 12" feature, which included nude photos of some KU coeds. The Web team decided to run photos of students looking at the magazine, but in instances where breasts and genitals were obvious on shots of the magazine, they were blurred out digitally.

KUSports.com also reproduced the Playboy Girls of the Big 12 magazine cover, which featured a model exposing her buttocks in a pair of old-fashioned pajamas. The Journal-World cropped the image for print publication to retain her modesty. In general, says Curley, you won't see much nudity on his sites, but the online standards are still looser than print's.

Curley gets passionate in defending his approach to his niche sites, which are typically more "edgy" than his news site, LJWorld.com, which is an award-winning, more traditional news operation. Because both Lawrence.com and KUSports.com are largely targeted at a younger demographic, the sites take chances. KUSports.com has published such features as downloadable player cards and screensavers -- content that traditionally-minded journalists might term as boosterism, not news.

But when the Web team builds sites, Curley says, they are trying to figure out what the audience wants. "We don't think it's the same thing as the audience of the print edition wants." Indeed, in developing the tone and content character of Lawrence.com, "we didn't believe in our hearts that 19-year-olds would say, 'I want to have fun tonight; I'll pick up today's newspaper' (to find out what's going on in town)."

The belief that 19-year-olds find the Lawrence Journal-World (or any other mainstream daily) irrelevant is what drives Curley and his team to push the envelope on taste. "We're just trying to be realists over here. 18- and 19-year-olds are not buying the Journal-World, but let's not give up on them," he says.

Curley says that the site's "looser" standards are anything but irresponsible. "We feel like we are being responsible to the company" by operating a site that speaks in the language of youth, and introduces a younger audience to a service offered by the newspaper.

Of course, there is an element of distancing from the parent newspapers -- especially in the case of Lawrence.com, which has an audience that might see an open affiliation with the Journal-World as a negative. Even the copyright notice of Lawrence.com disguises the affiliation with the newspaper: It reads, "Contents Copyright 2003 by lawrence.com." (KUSports.com, on the other hand, plays up the affiliation with the Lawrence Journal-World and the company's cable TV news operation, 6News.)

Is there a business model behind pushing the taste boundaries? "My sites don't lose money," Curley responds. And he professes to show revenue for all 12 members of his department (three editors/writers, two night editors who handle content from the print edition, five programmers/Web designers, a lone sales rep, and him; the team also builds and designs sites for other companies).

Lawrence.com is about to launch a print-based experiment, pushing its youth-oriented content to college students' doorsteps. "Lawrence.com: the Dead Wood Edition" will soon be hung on the doorknobs of college students who don't subscribe to the Journal-World. This will replace the "Extra" free weekly edition that they had been getting. (Non-subscribing residents who don't fit the student demographic will continue to receive "Extra" once a week.)

"Dead Wood Edition" will include selected content from Lawrence.com -- standing on its own as a print weekly, as well as driving people to the site for more content and information. Why do it? The company noticed that Lawrence.com was really catching on with a demographic that the company was not serving well, says Curley.

---

Reader Feedback on Profitability and Classifieds

My April 30 column about online business models brought this detailed response from Alan Jacobson of Brass Tacks Design:

Steve Outing began a recent column by saying, "News sites are a real business, bringing in substantial revenues." He made this assertion based in part on a new report from Borrell Associates entitled "What Newspaper Web Sites Earn."

I take issue with Steve's claim. My reading of the research indicates that news sites are generating little or no revenue. Deep into Borrell's report you'll find that 73% of revenue comes from classifieds -- not from ads on news pages. And this revenue is produced by surcharges that customers don't realize they're paying.

Furthermore, I think 73% is a little generous, and may be more indicative of smaller papers. One of my clients at a major metro told me that classifieds generate 90% of his online revenue.

Believe it or not, today's online profitability is tied directly to print classifieds, not the online editorial product. That's why sites can claim profitability while online display ads (banners, buttons, pop-ups, etc.) remain weak at all but the very top papers.

Here's how it works: Newspapers assess a surcharge when someone places a classified ad in print. The surcharge "pays" to place the ad at the newspaper's Web site. Take away the surcharge and you lose online profitability. The surcharge is an "assumed" buy -- customers placing ads don't know they are contributing to the online site's revenue.

No one is opting out of this surcharge today, but customers may balk tomorrow. Why? Because newspaper Web sites are not the leading source of online classifieds. "Pure play" sites are more popular.

We've conducted focus groups as part of our classified redesigns in Hartford, Conn.; Omaha, Neb.; Newport News, Va; Birmingham, Ala.; and Washington, Pa. We've conducted focus groups and usability studies in one other major market that must remain confidential for now.

All together, we've talked to more than 250 people. The results are the same regardless of newspaper size or location: Virtually no one mentions the newspaper's site as a source of classifieds. Instead, they mention the pure play sites -- Monster.com, Realtor.com, AutoTrader.com, etc. Despite a recent promotional campaign, CareerBuilder.com (which appears at many newspapers' Web sites) was barely mentioned by anyone we interviewed.

I believe that customers will eventually prefer to place their ads at the pure play sites they visit. At the same time, the print classified franchise is shrinking as advertisers begin placing their ads online instead of in print. This is already happening in recruitment.

Classified advertising is better suited to the Web than print for a number of reasons: keyword searches, faster delivery, value-added content, e-mail notification, etc. So it is reasonable to assume that the classified franchise will migrate from print to online as more and more people use the Internet for information.

If you believe this is true, then you can guess that advertisers will want their ads on the classified sites that get the most traffic, which today are not the newspaper sites. So we can't count on print classifieds to support online sites indefinitely.

In addition, our research has discovered half the people did not know that newspapers put classifieds online. Ironically, this may be good news because most newspaper Web sites lag behind pure plays in usability. One of our clients has already lost the recruitment category online for this very reason -- HR directors could not find their own ads at the newspaper's site, so they stopped using it.

According to Martin Niesenholtz, CEO, New York Times Digital, "Pure plays outclass us in usability and ding enduring franchises. We need to be better information architects and designers."

The improving revenue picture is masking a giant problem: as print classifieds continue to contract while more people use the pure play classifieds online, the entire newspaper classified franchise could disappear.

So what should newspapers do? Here's a three-step process to preserve the classified franchise:

1. Improve current classifieds in print, to make them a more effective means of promoting the newspaper's online classifieds. (Improve usability, enhance co-branding, etc.) 2. Promote the online site in print, but not before 3. Improving the usability of online sites, which lags behind the usability of the pure-play competitors.

Newspapers must improve the usability of their sites. There is nothing to be gained by promoting an online site if it offers a poor user experience. Give people a bad experience and they won't return.