
I was listening to a report on NPR this morning about
the state of newspapers. A few points they made that I found interesting included that over the last 6 months the only US newspaper to experience growth was
The Wall Street Journal, which grew slightly less than 1% during this period. The other point was that
The Boston Globe - that of the very special sports section - was not in the top 25 newspapers in the US.
I am sure there are many reasons for this, but I believe it's important to look at the different nature of their communities and how each paper has reacted to the supply of relevant (to them) online content.
It took me a while to understand the true value of online communities, and the differences between them, but I think the nature of a community's value is not just a function of its platform, but of its community's interests and how they are met. Communities will jump to any platform or site that meets their needs. A strong community will jump together, while a disparate community will devolve and move into separate directions. Stronger communities are focused on the
One Thing That Binds Them.
The two data points from the above report support this notion. The
WSJ has a community with a very specific interest, i.e. financial news. There are a few daily news sources that provide this type and quality of information, including
The Financial Times. There are other wire services providing information to analysts, e.g. Bloomberg, but the
WSJ has the widest variety of content relevant to the financial and business communities. These communities are focused on the financial area, and the type of content they need is supplied by less than a handful of sources. That won't change until there is another equally trusted source. It is almost necessary.
The Boston Globe once prided itself on being the more sophisticated local paper. It was more objective. More worldly. It had a separate business, metro and sports sections. It covered more topics in greater depth than local competition. This worked well until outside competitors with content richer in these areas became accessible (CNN,
The New York Times, ESPN...etc).
Globe readers have sought this content in areas of highest interest.
The Globe's community interest was split across the general topic areas, becoming less focused on local and more on simply finding better sources for its information. The community was not a tight community, but instead a consolidation of smaller communities.
The Boston Herald, another local newspaper, has typically catered toward local popular and general interest stories, and is probably faring better. That paper, because it is locally based and tends to look at the outside world from a local perspective, does not have obvious content substitutes and remains tight.
Other examples include
The Guardian in the UK, which, I have heard claimed, is the
second most widely read English newspaper in the World. The paper's strategy to provide and aggregate the best international news content has worked to attract a community that strives for this content.
The Economist has also grown incredibly over the past several years.
How important is it to know your community and understand how to feed their demand? Can communities change their appetite, or do they just need better content around their existing interests? Can your community impact your business success?
Photo credit:
Ville Miettinen