Gran vertical de Folha de S.Paulo

Volver al pasado

(clic para ampliar y leer tranquilamente)

Con el permiso presunto del medio y del autor, les paso esta nota que aparecen hoy en Clarín de Buenos Aires (las negritas y bastardillas son del original): 

Periodismo digital: el fin de una era y la consigna de "volver al futuro" 

El cierre de Buzzfeed News en los Estados Unidos sacudió al universo de los medios gráficos de comunicación. Cómo pasó de valer 1.500 millones a 100 millones de dólares. El fin de las redes sociales como distribuidoras de información. 

Por Gonzalo Abascal 

Jonah Peretti, fundador de BuzzFeed

Tal vez usted no conozca la web Buzzfeed, pero seguro recuerda el desafío viral “de qué color es este vestido” (670.000 usuarios en la nota a poco de publicarse el 26 de febrero de 2015), o el video de una sandía que explotaba enlazada con gomas elásticas (retransmitido por 800.000 personas en una semana), o alguno de los videos de mascotas que viralizó en casi 20 años, en los que fue definida como el nuevo paradigma en la información digital.

Los datos ayudan a dimensionarla.

. El 1 de noviembre de 2006 Jonah Peretti funda Buzzfeed en Nueva York.

. En enero de 2011, y apalancado en el éxito de la empresa, crea la división de noticias Buzzfeed News (dos años antes The New York Times, en crisis, había recurrido a un préstamo de US$ 250 millones del mexicano Carlos Slim para equilibrar sus finanzas).

. En 2014 Buzzfeed rechaza una oferta de compra de Disney por U$$ 650 millones.

. El Informe de Innovación producido por The New York Times la menciona 23 veces como modelo a seguir. En una metáfora del anticipado cambio de liderazgo, el informe se filtra y es publicado primero en Buzzfeed.

. En febrero de 2016 es elegida la empresa más innovadora de los EE.UU. Según sus mediciones, ese mes sus contenidos recibieron 5.000 millones de visitas en el mundo.

. Se expande a Inglaterra, Alemania, y México.

. El 24 de junio de 2021 sale a la Bolsa de Nueva York y su valuación alcanza los 1.500 millones de dólares.

. En el mismo mes gana un premio Pulitzer por su investigación sobre la detención en China de miles de musulmanes.

Bien.

Buzzfeed News cerró el pasado jueves 13, las acciones de la compañía cotizan por debajo de 1 dólar, y su valuación ronda los 100 millones, 15 veces menos que hace dos años.

La noticia conmovió al sistema de medios porque indica el fin de una época.

Vox, otra estrella del periodismo digital, achica su producción; y Vice, la tercera, pena en la búsqueda de un comprador que la rescate de años de pérdidas económicas.

Lo dijo el periodista Ben Smith, ex editor de Buzzfeed y luego columnista de medios del The New York Times: “Es el fin de una era en los medios de comunicación”.

La novedad impactará en la calidad de la información y en el futuro de la política y la economía. No de casualidad el crecimiento de Buzzfeed coincidió con el optimismo de Obama presidente, y su crisis se inició con Trump en el poder.

¿Cuál es la era que llega a su fin?

La del matrimonio entre los medios y las redes sociales como canales de distribución de sus contenidos. La viralidad escondía una trampa: los lectores desconocían las marcas y la mayor recaudación publicitaria era absorbida por las tecnológicas.

Lo detalla la periodista Hillary Frei en la revista Slate: “Buzzfeed parecía conocer los secretos de Internet: encontrar a la gente donde estaba. En aquellos años eso significaba Facebook (...) . Los medios hicieron promesas excesivas basados en los caprichos de Mark Zuckerberg (...) Hay una razón por la que The New York Times prospera y otros sitios siguen existiendo. Tienen un legado, marcas que la gente busca y lectores fieles (...) El juego ha cambiado por completo. Los viejos trucos de tráfico ya no funcionan: lo que funciona es hacer un buen trabajo para un lector que pagará. Siempre fue así en el periodismo. La década de 2010 fue un desvío, no el nuevo camino a seguir”.

La explicación la completa un informe del Laboratorio de medios Nieman de la universidad de Harvard: “Cuando el Pew Research Center encuestó a los estadounidenses sobre las organizaciones de noticias en las que confiaban, BuzzFeed terminó en último lugar, en el puesto 36 de 36. Fue la única organización de noticias en la que se desconfiaba más de lo que se confiaba en todos los sectores políticos, desde los más liberales a los más conservadores”.

Rafat Ali, fundador y director de la empresa de medios digitales Skift, lo definió: “La era de los medios desechables ya está aquí. Cuando construyes tu negocio sobre una tendencia -en este caso, el tráfico sostenido en las redes sociales- y esa tendencia llega a su fin, también lo hace tu negocio”.

Hoy The New York Times supera los 10 millones de suscriptores y sus ingresos por suscripciones digitales aumentaron en 2022 casi un 12% anual, de 342 a 382 millones de dólares, según el sitio inglés especializado Press Gazette.

Pero más importante aún, consolidó su marca como una referencia mundial. La que busca cada uno de sus lectores.

Ben Smith lo llama “volver al futuro”, que es encontrar el futuro en las raíces.

Para el periodismo es la mejor noticia.

Y para que la vuelta al pasado sea completa, les paso el link del Nieman Lab con la entrada del 28 de abril de 2015 que Joseph Lichterman titula Here’s how BuzzFeed is thinking about its international growth.

La democratización de los contenidos en Time Magazine

Subo de Axios Media Trends esta nota de Sara Fischer sobre la decisión de la revista Time de liberar todos sus contenidos de cualquier muro de pago.

Exclusive: Time to remove digital paywall

Time is fully removing its digital paywall beginning June 1, its CEO Jessica Sibley told Axios. 

 

Why it matters: The company, which turned 100 in March, has had some form of a digital paywall since 2011. 

Driving the news: Sibley said the shift is both a business and editorial decision. 

• "The opportunity to reach more audiences globally, that are younger, and that are diverse, is really important to Sam and myself," she noted, referencing Time's newly-appointed editor in chief Sam Jacobs. Jacobs is the youngest editor in chief in Time's history. 

• Time plans to produce more ad-supported, digital content that will live on its website, its mobile app and across social media. 

• The company will continue to cover the same types of topics editorially and to lean heavily into a few key focus areas, such as climate and sustainability, health care and politics, she said. 

Details: Time currently has 1.3 million print subscribers and 250,000 digital subscribers. 

• The digital content from Time's magazine will now be free, alongside all other content on the website, including 100 years' worth of Time's archived content. 

• The company will still charge for the print product and still offer a paid digital version of the print magazine through retailers (like Amazon Kindle and Apple News) and through Apple’s App Store. 

• Paid subscribers to the website will be notified of the changes immediately, and their subscription payments will expire when the paywall is removed June 1. 

Be smart: Being able to reach more people and expand Time's brand exposure is a key focus for Sibley as she seeks to grow Time's business globally, especially across events. 

• For example, last year, Time expanded its TIME100 Impact Awards to Dubai. 

• Removing any friction that would prevent Time from expanding its audience "is going to allow us to do what we need to do for the next 100 years," she said. 

• "We believe in the democratization of content." 

Between the lines: With more of Time's business shifting to different revenue streams, like events and licensing, the company has flexibility to experiment with a new subscription strategy. 

• "We know that in media, we're always looking for new models and are continuing on our digital transformation and innovation journey," Sibley said. 

• Part of that process includes "understanding consumer behavior and making sure that we are moving in the right direction with how consumers are engaging in content," she added. 

• Today, Time Studios, the company's TV and film division, brings in around 25% of its revenues. Last year, the company earned around $200 million in revenue. 

Catch up quick: Time first launched a hard paywall on its website in 2011 against all of its magazine content. Later that year, it added the hard paywall on all of its archives. It experimented with different types of meters and payment structures across its multiple brands in the years since. 

 

• In 2015 and 2016, when Time still was a part of Time Inc.,and owned a slew of niche print magazine brands, it began to experiment with metered paywalls that get triggered after a reader visits a website a certain amount of times. It ultimately returned to a hard paywall model in 2016. 

• In 2021, three years after Time had been acquired by billionaire Marc Benioff, the company returned to a metered paywall across its whole site, including its archives. 

The big picture: Legacy publishers are still trying to figure out how to make money online. Many media companies leaned more heavily into subscriptions during the Trump presidency and COVID-19 era, but with inflation running high, subscription fatigue is setting in for some. 

• Gannett, the U.S.'s largest local newspaper company, is reducing the number of articles behind its paywall in order to boost the company's ad revenue, Axios has reported.  

• Quartz dropped its paywall last year. Spotify is dropping paywalls on some of its podcasts. Netflix, Disney+ and other streamers have debuted cheaper, ad-supported subscription plans. 

The bottom line: "I don't think that we're going to be alone or not followed by others that are going to look at new business models that are right for their businesses, for their audiences and how potential consumers new and existing and everything in between are able to access that content," Sibley said.

Como los discos de vinilo

Les paso, sin permiso, este delicioso artículo de Tim de Lisle que aparece en The New Statesman (Londres) de hoy.

It started when I was seven. I had just fallen in love with football and, like all the best love affairs, this one faced obstacles.

My parents were not football fans. At home, near Paddington station in London, we had just gathered around the black-and-white telly to see a man on the moon, but I was far more excited by a man in the mud. George Best’s magic knocked me sideways and made me a Manchester United supporter.

In 1969 football took place at 3pm on Saturdays, plus a few midweek evenings, with only one English club game televised live in the whole season (the Cup final). I wasn’t allowed to stay up for the evening games; even Match of the Day, on a Saturday night, was way past my bedtime. I wrote an angry letter to the BBC, asking them to repeat it in the morning; they replied with a polite but firm no. That left The Big Match on ITV, which lit up grey Sunday afternoons. In the wide acres of the rest of the week, there was only one place to go: the papers.

Here my parents redeemed themselves. They had the Times and the Daily Mail delivered – both, in those distant days, broadsheets. They would read them over breakfast, but before that I had them to myself. I would wake at six, dash downstairs in the dark, sit on the doormat and soak up the sport.

The football was easy to find in the Mail, splashed on the back. It was harder to track down in the Times, then edited by William Rees-Mogg, father of the less tolerable Jacob. There were only two sports pages, squeezed inside and often shunted around, but they were worth it when you got there. Every report ended with the team sheets, where the Times made me smile with its stuffiness. England had two superstars then, both called Bobby: they were invariably listed as R Moore and R Charlton.

The midweek match reports had a special magnetism. I was allowed to listen to the first half on the radio, tucked up in bed, but never knew the final score until I reached the doormat the next morning. I was dead impressed that the papers could get the story of the whole game written and printed and delivered by the time I woke up.

And so a habit formed that has lasted half a century. Packed off to boarding school at eight, I was thrilled to find that you were allowed to order a paper of your own. I went for the Daily Express before migrating to the Mail. The paper was black and white, but during my boarding-school days it was a splash of colour – like getting a letter from home, an event.

My dream was to play for England, but at ten it became clear that this was a long shot. I needed a dream B. Aha, I thought, I can be a football writer and still go to the big games.

As time went on, my football enthusiasm waxed and waned, sometimes eclipsed by cricket or music or life. The greatest love of all turned out to be journalism. Internships had yet to be invented, so I started freelancing for magazines at 16. I kept on writing at university, mainly for Smash Hits, and joined the National Union of Journalists, then an essential step on the road to Fleet Street.

When I was 23, the Daily Telegraph, which had become a gerontocracy under Bill Deedes, was being rejuvenated by Max Hastings. He would hire anyone as long as they were under 25 and offered me a job as the cub reporter on “Peterborough”, the Telegraph’s genteel gossip column. I have been writing for the papers ever since.

When I moved to the newsroom, the Peterborough crew gave me a framed cartoon that depicted our boss. “Now that Tim’s gone,” he was saying, “we can cancel the papers.” Even among other newsprint junkies, I was a noted addict. My writing has always sprung from my reading, all that pulp turning to compost. My brother Charlie and our sister Rosie became journalists, too, and the flat we shared was a forest of print. Those inky pages were where you learnt the language and picked up the tricks of the trade. Poring over them was both a pleasure in itself and a ritual to get the day rolling. “The morning paper,” said the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, “is the realist’s morning prayer.” Give us this day our daily read.

That prayer was being said by half the population:in 1987 Britain’s 11 national dailies sold 15 million copies every day. As each copy averaged just over two readers, more people were reading a paper than had ever watched the most popular soap (EastEnders, which reached 30 million in 1986). In 2023 there are ten national dailies and their total sales are estimated at 4 million, or 5 million if you count the Metro, which is free. This is an estimate because several papers, including the Telegraph, the Times, the Guardian and the Sun, no longer publish their sales. Most of the others are in freefall: in the ABC figures for January, more than half the nationals were down 18 per cent year on year. Even the mighty Daily Mail had slid below 800,000. (Full disclosure: these days I write for the Mail on Sunday about music and for the Guardian about sport. One role is print-first, the other web-first. I also have a Substack called United Writing.)

Journalism itself, for all the bad press it gets, is alive and clicking. The news may well be bigger than ever, now that Apple has become an aggregator and reaches even more people than the BBC news website. The papers, though, are slipping through our fingers. The Mirror, which sold 5 million copies a day in the mid-Sixties, is down to 277,550, having lost 17 buyers out of every 18 it had then. To subscribe to a paper is to be part of an endangered species.

I still take two papers a day, three on Sundays. Every morning, a dog walker without the dog, I head for the last newsagent left in my corner of North London and chat to him about the football. I pick up the Guardian (for the writing) and the Times (for the sport, transformed since Rees-Mogg’s time). I devour them over breakfast and enjoy them as much as ever. Even without my subscriber’s discount, they are good value compared with a coffee, a pint, or even a paperback.

Last autumn I started teaching journalism at Goldsmiths, University of London. On Thursday mornings I take a feature-writing class with five third-year undergraduates on the History and Journalism course. They are bright and committed and never ever come in with a paper under their arm, not even the Metro. Once I gently suggested that it might be a good idea to buy a weekend paper and settle down with it. One student, talented enough to have appeared in the nationals already, looked incredulous. “Where,” he asked, “do you even buy them?”

The students are working on a 4,000-word feature that forms part of their finals. They are encouraged to find independent experts to interview. For this piece, I talk to three: a media correspondent, an academic and an analyst.

Will Turvill is associate editor of the Press Gazette, once a weekly trade mag, now a lively website owned by the same group as the New Statesman. He’s boyish, friendly, but blunt. So, Will, is print doomed? “For newspapers, yes I think it is,” he says. “I’m in an office covering the media and we don’t even take much notice of the print circulation figures. They’re in terminal decline now, or at least rapid decline. The newspapers have better stories to tell about how they’re doing online or with their apps.”

I wonder if he still takes a print paper himself. “At the weekend, the Times and Sunday Times –but not as often as ten years ago.” Surely the dailies still land with a thud in the Press Gazette office? “No. During the week I use services like PressReader to flick through newspapers digitally, then I go to the newspaper websites to read stories in depth. I read the FT and the Times apps, they’re really good. The Times is particularly good because it’s like a newspaper.” A twinge of irony there.

“I’m 32 and I don’t think any friends of my age buy newspapers during the week,” Turvill says. “Some do on the weekend. Reading a paper on the screen is not as fun. And there’s a bit of prestige in having a print edition. It’s notable that the Independent [which went out of print in 2016] produces a front page for social media. Newspaper front pages are quite nice to look at, aren’t they? They’re a historical document. I did wonder, when the Queen passed away, whether that might come to be seen as the last time that printed papers had an impact.”

For the view from academe, I consult Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, a 42-year-old Dane who runs the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford. He looms on my laptop with neatly brushed hair and clear-headed views. So, Rasmus, are newspapers doomed? “I think first of all you have to separate it out into two things – the newspaper as news organisation and the newspaper as printed edition,” he says. “It’s an infelicity of the English language that the word ‘newspaper’ covers both, where in other languages there are usually two different terms.

“Print has been dead for a long time for many people,” he continues. “Print is still somewhat important for a minority of the population over 65, and it does mean something to those old enough to have grown up with it, the over-45s. But even among the older group it’s a minority. It’s a niche medium that serves a small and shrinking audience well.” Ouch.

“Younger people are engaging with digital news, but the way they use it is quite different. Sitting down with a single source of news for 30 minutes is exceedingly rare. Most people use a variety of sources – their phone, the radio, email newsletters. Society has changed and there are fewer men who have no other responsibilities at home.” Another ouch.

Does Nielsen get a paper himself? “I haven’t bought a print edition since before the pandemic.”

The third wise man is Douglas McCabe, CEO and director of publishing at Enders Analysis, a media research consultancy. He’s an eloquent Scot of 55 who has spent 15 years examining the press. “When I started,” he says, “there were lots of people like me. Banks had newspaper analysts – that would be absurd now.”

So, Douglas, are newspapers doomed? “Yes and no,” he says. “Of course print newspapers as an industrial-scale phenomenon are nearly over. The length of that final runway is the only real debate, and publishers should do what they can to extend it.

“On the other hand, the idea and existence of the newspaper will not entirely disappear, perhaps ever. The vinyl album is maybe the obvious metaphor. At some point in the future, we will see that print newspapers, and also magazines, are expensive, inconvenient, impractical, beautifully designed, cherished products that do a specific job better than any other manifestation of their content.

“That job relates to layout, browsing, serendipity: 45 minutes at the kitchen table or on the sofa, coffee in hand. Such a product is an elegant expression of an editor’s (and perhaps a proprietor’s) vision and curation – an experience that is very hard for a utility designed for smartphone scrolling to recreate.

McCabe argues that, in 2030 and 2040, many successful news brands will prize some version of this product, not just because it is a hangover from the print era, but because it’s a solution with a loyal, multi-generational audience. But readers getting their hands on it might be the trickiest part. “The tripwire will not be demand, it will be the cost of supply. As sales fall, the unit cost of distribution will start to explode, and publishing companies have zero retail skills. They’ve no agility, because they’ve never had to think about it for 200 years. All that stuff was outsourced to WH Smith.”

When I mention the generation gap and the Gen Y aversion to paying for news, McCabe begs to differ. “When young people don’t buy online news it’s because of their life stage, not because they won’t pay for stuff online – my generation didn’t buy newspapers when we were young. This current generation understands the need to pay for quality online content more than my generation, not less.”

Does McCabe buy a paper? “I quite religiously get the FT Weekend. I just don’t have time to look at physical newspapers during the week. In the office, you’d see the odd one, to remind ourselves about things like layout and volume of advertising. And in our research we look at what is lost in the online world – the serendipity.”

It’s not dark yet, as Bob Dylan said, but it’s getting there. Longing for a light at the end of the tunnel, I ask the experts if any papers are bucking the trend. Two mention the same names: the Aberdeen Press & Journal and the Dundee Courier, both owned by DC Thomson, the family firm best known for publishing the Beano. In the UK sales chart for regional dailies, the P&J is No 1, the Courier No 3. It is clearly time to get on a train.

At the station in Dundee I pay £1.55 for a copy of the Courier. It’s direct but classy, sensible rather than sensational, and decidedly local. To get to its office you just walk into town, rather than heading for an industrial estate on the outskirts. The city centre is a set of civic edifices: the museum, the high school, the university and the Courier, a handsome red-brick building that glows in the faint winter sun.

The editor, David Clegg, comes down to reception to find me, wearing ripped jeans and a maroon shirt. He’s 40 and comes from Belfast, where he got the bug as a paperboy, delivering the Belfast Telegraph. He joined the Courier as a young reporter, then moved to the Daily Record in Glasgow, becoming Political Journalist of the Year at the Scottish Press Awards in 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018; in 2018, he was also named Journalist of the Year for his scoop about the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, facing allegations of sexual assault. In 2019 Clegg returned to the Courier as editor.

When I ask why the printed paper is still big in Dundee, it turns out the story is not quite as it seems. “I have to say that the brief for the job was explicitly to lead a digital transformation,” Clegg tells me. “In the last few years we’ve completely reorganised the newsroom, invested a lot in digital skills, digital training, and products on the website. Almost everyone who creates content produces it with digital in mind, and then there’s a team who turns that into a newspaper, whereas before it was the other way round. The Courier is a very profitable print product, but the future of news is digital. The way I think about it is that the print paper is a runway, to get a self-sustaining digital product off the ground. We have a bit of a longer runway than some.”

Many local papers have websites that are free to read and clotted with adverts. The Courier and the P&J have swum against the tide, ditching the ads and charging a tidy £5.99 a week. “We’ve hit 25,000 digital subscribers for the two papers together,” Clegg says, “and some of them pay extra for the e-paper.”

He talks me through today’s Courier, which has separate editions for Fife and Perth, even though they’re only 20 miles away. The splash is an interview with a 12-year-old girl from Fife who is speaking out about being bullied, prompted by a Courier campaign. That’s brave, I say. “Very.”

The obituaries are further forward than in most papers, national politics further back. “I’m interested in what people will pay for, which in general is higher-quality stuff, like court reports. We’re back in every court in our patch.”

Clegg uses the web, with its limitless space, to provide extra services like posting school menus. “What you do find, however, is that no matter what team it is – the health team, the schools team, obituaries in particular – the people they’ve been dealing with will always ask, ‘When’s it going to be in the paper?’ That still has a level of cachet.”

Next morning I’m in Aberdeen, buying the Press and Journal for £1.65 and reading it over breakfast at Pret. Like the Courier, it radiates decency. The splash is from the courts: “Cruel thief robbed OAP as she waited for ambulance”. It’s an archetypal story, except that the thief was a woman.

The P&J’s office sits in the city centre, a sleek modern building surrounded by stately greyness. The editor, Frank O’Donnell, shows me the view from the roof terrace. “That,” he says with a laugh, pointing at the council next door, “is the second-biggest granite building in the world.” The P&J has a few superlatives of its own. As well as being the best-selling regional daily in Britain, it’s also the oldest. Founded in 1748, it had just celebrated its 275th birthday – and its first win as newspaper of the year at the Scottish Press Awards.

O’Donnell, a youthful 52, grew up in Edinburgh and he too was a paperboy, delivering the Scotsman and the Evening News. His parents didn’t take a newspaper, but “a friend’s parents did the crossword and opened the paper out and got me interested”. A football writer at first, then a general reporter, he went all the way from delivering the Scotsman to editing it. In 2019 he was poached by the P&J, which is a smaller name but a bigger paper, selling 26,746 copies a day to The Scotsman’s 8,762.

“The Scotsman has a much larger audience, digitally,” O’Donnell says. “Thirty per cent of its page views come from overseas – it’s got that name. The P&J is much more of a regional paper, and they wanted to invest in developing a proper digital subscription. We’ve taken all the adverts off the site and really tried to change the content. I’d spent my whole career on the back foot, and here I saw an opportunity to leave the title in a stronger position than it was when I entered it.”

O’Donnell is more traditionally dressed than Clegg, but behind the collar and tie is an amiable revolutionary. He doesn’t have an office himself, which means he is always among his staff. His conference room has no chairs and no doors, just three open doorways. “Stand-up, so you’ve got more energy and anyone can join. Three entrances, so if something happens and you want to know more you can give someone a shout.” Later he adds: “Leading is about empowering.”

The newsroom is full of plants and scoreboards, listing not just the most-read stories but those most likely to send the reader to the subs page. The aim is 75,000 digital subs in three years between the two papers, and they’re on target. “I’m very invested in making these titles work,” O’Donnell says, “but I’m also very invested in making journalism work. I don’t want us to win and everyone else to lose. If we can provide a path for other titles to follow, that’s very powerful.”

The editors I’ve known have included the good, the bad, the ugly and the barely there. I leave Scotland feeling that Clegg and O’Donnell are two of the best, both genial and effective, and each employing over 100 journalists while so many local papers are dying the death of a thousand cuts.

Reports of the newspaper’s death can be exaggerated. Its fans cling to the hope that it might, as McCabe suggests, be like the vinyl album – now back from oblivion and outselling the CD. Or, better still, like the cinema, which plummeted from 1.65 billion tickets sold in the UK in 1946 to just 54 million in 1984, then bounced back to a steady 150-170 million (before the pandemic).

Print still spells prestige, as Turvill says. You never hear anybody saying they want to see their name online. The front page may have fewer readers than the home page, but it has more impact. When the papers land on Twitter, around 10pm, they make waves. And print remains memorable, finishable, keepable: it’s not easy to frame a home page.

50 años de Libération