There is sheer and absolute panic in the media markets these days. We have industry veterans advocating a switch in online content distribution from the free model to the subscription model like it is a panacea for all ailments and everyone is rushing about trying to increase rack rates. To all this hectic activity, there is only thing I can say: stop, take a deep breath and try and think long term than short term.

It is rather ironic to see all this activity at this very stage. For years the media has sat on its haunches while the internet and other factors steadily changed the way information is created, distributed and consumed in the world. Now, after the horse has bolted (and also taken barn along with it), they think effecting the above-mentioned changes will somehow magically set things right.

Let me break it for everyone, it just won't do much to help things.

I have previously written at length on the matter and I will link to it than repeat myself:

Indian media has had the good fortune of being in a market reality that is different from the ones we see in the west. Empowered by our third world status, we have a market that is still far from being saturated and playing on potential than actuals, we have had it good for a while now. The past five years has been a time of extreme prosperity in the segment, with everyone and their uncle (or aunt) starting a publication or a television channel because the uncle (or aunt) next-door has one.

Quite a few of these entities were built on the 'invest-now-reap-the-benefits-later' school of thought that is the cornerstone of a bullish market. When the industry as a whole is trending upwards in its vitals, almost everyone wants in on a piece of the action. Losses are glossed over, since at least some money is coming in and 'it is just a matter of time' before the huge chunk of change comes in. Which is all fine when the going is good. Trouble is that the going is not that good anymore.

In a three part series, I'll try and take a swipe at the problems and the possible solutions for the segments: internet, print and television.

Internet

If there is one thing that has marked the eight-plus years that I have had the good fortune of being a part of this industry, it is the perpetual promise of a better and bigger tomorrow. The number of times you hear "when the market opens up" at any industry event is always greater than the sightings of companies actually having a clue about what they are trying to accomplish in the long run. I have written at length on this topic before, so i won't subject you to more of the same torture and we'll look at the possible solutions:

From a Q&A session for a journalism student's project, not edited much for language or clarity and a bit rambling.

1. As the newspaper industry in India is a growing one, do you think there is a need for integration, as in the West it is mostly done to prevent the death of newspapers.

I am not quite sure what exactly does "integration" stand for here. If it means cross-publication integration, as seen in the case of Times of India and Hindustan Times, there is an absolute need for it. Granted, that traditional media is still growing at a rapid pace in India, mainly because we are still a fair bit away from market saturation (more readers/viewers being added to the group and a growing number of English-speaking and newly literate junta) and also because we are about five to seven years behind the curve in the internet penetration game in relation to the West. But it is a given that the scenario won't be the same forever.

The closer you get to such a situation, the more pressure publications and their managements would feel to increase efficiencies and cut costs. And one of the ways to get something like that done is to integrate across organizations, especially in emerging market segments and niches that don't justify the cost or the expense of two or more players going at each other just because the other one is getting into that market. I also think we would soon see publications pooling resources on commonplace reporting and coverage, like press conferences and industry events, to cut out the agencies in the longer run.

In "You Don't Understand Our Audience," John Hockenberry writes about his time while working with NBC on Dateline NBC and the things he had learned from his time there.

It is quite a long piece and I don't have the time to go through all the points, but there is one bit that stands out in it, which has bothered me (being someone who started out as a journalist) for a while now:

While Six Sigma's goal-oriented blather and obsession with measuring everything was jarring, it was also weirdly familiar, inasmuch as it was strikingly reminiscent of my college Maoism I class. Mao seemed to be a good model for Jack Welch and his Six Sigma foot soldiers; Six Sigma's "Champions" and "Black Belts" were Mao's "Cadres" and "Squad Leaders."

While quantifying results, targets and every possible variable is almost a given in any operation, it is, perhaps, not best applied in a news or a media environment. It may look like commonsense that results may not always be in line with effort in a news operation for most media people (read journalists, producers etc), the same is not what can be said about top level executives who are not from a media background.

The reasons are quite simple:

1. 20% of your top-performing content will always do well, irrespective of the incremental effort you put into it. This segment will always have lousy marginal productivity, since the story by itself will do well.
2. The bottom 20% of your content will always suck and never do well, even if you were to break your head against the wall and also the heads of the rest of your editorial team. This segment is a place where you have no business putting anything more than your cursory effort into.
3. The middle 30% is where your hidden gems are often to be found. If you need to make something like Sig Sigma work, you need to consider this 60% as the 100% subset you got to work with.

Obviously, for a top level executive who has seen Six Sigma work wonders across the production line, it is an impossible situation to fathom that you can't eliminate all inefficiencies when your primary product is something that has inefficiencies which can't be eliminated.

1. A bunch of cats and dogs speaking silly English gets more traction on a regular basis than the political blog of a mainstream television network on Wordpress.com
2. The most read story on latimes.com is about a transsexual sportswriter coming out in the publication that he she writes for.
3. OJR's "Five lessons from 2007" amount to pretty much no lesson at all. Seriously, if getting a breaking news blog, copying sports style and trying to dig the facts out is all that it would take to 'fix' media in 2008, I am at a loss for what can be said about the situation.