Holy Kaw! All the topics that interest us

Could community solve the journalism crisis?

More fresh thoughts on journalism.


Over on Advertising Age, Judy Shapiro presents an interesting argument for why charging for content will fail and how journalism can save itself through community building. In a nutshell, Shapiro suggests that there is too much content and too many leaks for any sort of gated content to succeed. Instead, she says, journalists should focus on fostering community on their Web sites, an approach that would build loyalty, lower bounce rates, and offer a unique, compelling user experience. If all works as Shapiro says, users will be more likely to purchase products or services, Web sites will be able to leverage their user base, and ad revenue will surge.

Although Shaprio doesn't state it explicitly, her solution has the airs of social networking models, such as Facebook, which has completely invested in the value of relationships—ads based on relationships, suggested fan pages based on relationships and user information based on relationships, for instance. Not a bad idea, but I wonder to what extent this approach as already been attempted. My intial reaction is to look toward companies like Gannett, which tried to create a community experience through hyperlocalism, blogs, and the community platform called Topix. Also, sites such as Chow seems to thrive in its community, and I wonder how well they are doing. 

In a broad view, Shapiro's point make sense: Can we expand the services of a journalism outlet to do more than just provide the headlines? And, let's continue to think about ways to monetize quality information and well-run Web sites besides directly charging for content.

Do you think Shapiro's solution will work? To understand it fully, read the article.

By Noelle Chun


Comments (4)

Oct 25, 2009
rebelcontent said...
Is there really a journalism crisis, or rather is it a publishing crisis?
Oct 25, 2009
Pramod said...
Of late, we have realized that an authoritative and credible content is the need of the hour. Facebook type of models survive because of their ability to enable "people networks" not because they create any content. Community can talk and spread the content but cannot create an authoritative content. We need big publishing houses, un-affected by the community, to read-understand and believe what is happening around us. Also one reason why many publishing houses are still surviving.

BTW, journalism is just a skill, it will survive anywhere. The issue if at all any, is whether the publications will survive.

Oct 25, 2009
5minutesformom said...
She makes many interesting points, as do those who have left comments on her article. I also love what Pramod said above that journalism will always survive, the question is whether or not the publications will.
Oct 26, 2009
Mike said...
I'm not sure good journalism outlets serve only to provide headlines. But whatever the case, I personally loathe the idea of the collective when it comes to identifying and disseminating real news. I know the gate is wide open already and it will never be shut again, but the idea that "everybody is an expert" and all voices carry equal weight really sucks. We're on a slippery slope headed straight to the bottom. Watch Mike Judge's "Idiocracy" for further illustration. Facebook is a perfect example. That platform is the height of superficiality. If we want our news to look like that then bring on more "fresh thoughts" for collective generation of content. Let's leave something to the pros, please! Ugggh.

Leave a comment...