In my previous post I talked about how broadcasters are as vulnerable as newspapers to the threat of the evolving online media. I also said that I thought that newspapers posed an imminent threat to local news broadcasters because "Newspapers have the reporters and the editors, they just need to add
some audio-video production staff and some decent video editing
software and they’re good to go." With this post I’d like to expand on this point a little more.

As you probably know most newspapers and broadcast outlets are owned by large media conglomerates.  Think Tribune Company, Knight-Ridder and Gannett.

For regulatory reasons (in the US at least) media companies could not own a
TV station and newspaper in the same major metropolitan market.  Now, with some decent software and a digital video production staff you could have the newspaper property of one media company going
head-to-head with the news operation of a local TV station owned by a
rival media company.  You could argue that since the newspaper wouldn’t
be broadcasting, per se, that it’s an apples-oranges thing.  But if you look down the road to what media consumption will probably look like in five or ten years you can see that it’s more of a tangelo thing (tangelos are hybrids of grapefruits and tangerines).

Right now most of us consume our media in ways that are markedly different from 15 years ago (see my previous post for an example), and our consumption will change again over the next 5-10 years.  Right now we still watch TV, browse our computer and thumb through a newspaper. 

Soon our homes will be networked and we’ll have some sort of server type computer that manages the intake of media (audio, video, text, phone calls) and distributes them to a variety of devices.  We’ll probably have flat screens for viewing, wireless devices (probably something that looks like the Sony PSP with a stylus for writing) for interacting with the computer and then a device like a Blackberry or Treo to take our stuff with us.  Essentially all of our media will be a data feed.

Do I think all printed materials will go away?  No way.  For one most of us will never read something the length of a book on a screen, but as the hardware for PDA type things get better, and wireless networks become ubiqiuitous you’ll see less need for newsstands or TVs in airport terminals.  We’ll be able to get our news, video and audio on our devices.

To take a current example look at Gannett.  Right now I read one of its newspapers (USA Today), sometimes visit its website and watch their TV (local station).  In the near future I expect I’ll consume their content in some sort of blended text/audio/video offering. 

For a report on Congress I can imagine a Gannett reporter writing her story, recording an interview using some digital recording device and then sending the file to a production team that would then imbed links and tags to supporting audio, video or text files and package it for distribution. 

On the consumer’s end I would have subscribed to a syndication feed from Gannett for anything related to Congress.  As soon as they "broadcast" it I’d know about it and could access from that point on.

Back to the newspapers vs. broadcasters issue.  Gannett doesn’t own a newspaper in my local market (Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, NC), but it does own local broadcaster WFMY. Media General and Landmark Communications own the newspapers in the market, but no broadcast stations. Landmark’s paper is the Greensboro News & Record and they are starting an initiative that is putting the power of digital video in the hands of it’s reporters.  How could WFMY not see this as a threat in the near future?

The News & Record is already experimenting with blogs, RSS, and other big changes on the media landscape.  By pushing the envelope with what I’ll call blended media they are positioning themselves to dominate the local media landscape in the future. The reason they’ll dominate is:

• It’s easier and faster for a newspaper to do this than for a broadcaster.  Newspapers have more reporters and editors than broadcasters, and they produce many more stories.  It’s alot easier and cheaper to add digital video production than it is to ramp up editorial capabilities.
• By doing this now the News & Record is training its advertisers and its own sales staff.  It’s familiarizing them with the concept of blended media.  The sales staff has already had to adjust to the print-online mix, and are doing better these days at selling the "package" rather than the pieces.  With the explosion in online advertising and the development of new technology, seemingly every day, the sales staff that best understands the new media landscape will win every time.  (Hint: to sell ad space you really need to be able to explain it as if you’re talking to a two year old. That’s why the sales team that "gets it" first will win.)

But that’s local.  On the national scene I don’t see one company having a particular advantage over another right now.  The same opportunities are open to each, just in different markets.  The advantage will eventually go to the company that is most aggressive in taking the News & Record’s lead and creating a truly blended, "tangelo" media operation.

***Update: Steve Rubel links to an NPR piece about newspapers getting into Podcasting.  The first step?***