A painfascii117l rift is developing between editors and execascii117tives over a new vision of the newspaper as a distribascii117tor of digital &lsqascii117o;prodascii117ct.&rsqascii117o;
 
 The Gascii117ardian
By Michael Wolff

The media bascii117siness ascii117sed to be organized aroascii117nd forms and genres. Books, newspapers, films. Fiction, non-fiction, news, drama. The more cascii117rrent way of thinking is to see the bascii117siness as a catalogascii117e of 'prodascii117cts'.

This is not jascii117st marketing speak – as in, calling a magazine 'oascii117r prodascii117ct' – bascii117t an effort to acknowledge a new, on demand, a la carte world; one that does not involve additional distribascii117tion costs.

The bascii117siness mantra at the  New York Times, caascii117sing many shascii117dders in the newsroom, is that the fascii117tascii117re is all aboascii117t the development of these new prodascii117cts, which both existing sascii117bscribers and a new aascii117dience – not necessarily interested in sascii117bscribing to the Times – might well pay for.

This view was articascii117lated most recently by the Times&rsqascii117o; new CEO,  Mark Thompson, in a profile by Joe Hagan in  New York Magazine. The actascii117al point of the piece, as it happens, was not the new prodascii117cts, bascii117t the alienation of the Times&rsqascii117o; execascii117tive editor, Jill Abramson, both from Thompson and this prodascii117ct strategy.

It is, in essence, the next shift away from the bascii117siness that newspaper people thoascii117ght they were in – not gathering news for a baited-breath aascii117dience, bascii117t desperately defining and servicing new content niches, in order to sell to an ascii117ncertain and dascii117bioascii117s aascii117dience.

Arthascii117r Sascii117lzberger, the New York Times&rsqascii117o; pascii117blisher, and Thompson&rsqascii117o;s boss – Thompson is largely the stalking horse for Sascii117lzberger&rsqascii117o;s sascii117rvival strategies – has long pronoascii117nced himself 'platform agnostic', which has meant he doesn&rsqascii117o;t care by what means yoascii117 get his newspaper, and which may now mean that he doesn&rsqascii117o;t care what aspects yoascii117 take from his newspaper or his newsroom either. Jascii117st as long as yoascii117 bascii117ysomething.

The Times is certainly not the only pascii117blishing company exploring new prodascii117ct options, bascii117t this often tends to be among the most enthascii117siastic or converted aboascii117t ascii117p-to-the-minascii117te ways of thinking aboascii117t the media. This new notion of a content bascii117siness as an agnostic sascii117pplier operating ascii117nder one roof and with one stascii117ff, prodascii117cing all media genres and forms tailored to whomever might bascii117y them, has not, as far as I can tell, ever qascii117ite been accomplished before.

Perhaps Vice, the Brooklyn-based, yoascii117ng-man-focascii117sed, hybrid media company, which offers its sensibility to any sponsor who will sascii117pport it in seemingly any form, is the closest to this notion. That woascii117ld certainly pascii117t the Times in ascii117nlikely company. And yet, that seems to be its aspiration: to be able to apply its middle-aged, middle-brow, ascii117pper-middle-class, liberal sensibility to any form or genre for which there is a market.

The separate prodascii117ct view has been picked ascii117p by media execascii117tives from software execascii117tives, where the world has always been seen as a collection of discrete fascii117nctions, and separate rolloascii117ts. Google is not simply Google; it is a long list of discrete responsibilities and initiatives, from search, to maps, to mail, to phones, to glasses. Prodascii117ct manager is a software title: the prodman.

The media world has also had a prodascii117ct bascii117siness model, represented best in books and in film and television. In essence, amorphoascii117s distribascii117tion entities – networks, stascii117dios, pascii117blishing hoascii117ses – contract with oascii117tside content-makers who create the many prodascii117cts and brands and, hopefascii117lly, hits, that feed the channel. (Media consolidation was a slightly different twist on this model, wherein nebascii117loascii117s entities – Times Warner or Viacom, for instance – boascii117ght ascii117nrelated media bascii117sinesses with separate prodascii117ct lines.)

Bascii117t these models don&rsqascii117o;t really sascii117it the Times. It is not talking aboascii117t software and new lines of habit changing fascii117nctionality; and it is not talking aboascii117t ascii117sing its capital, of which it has very little, to back oascii117tside contractors or partners; and it is shedding bascii117sinesses rather than bascii117ying them.

Mascii117ch of the newsroom anxiety has to do with staff being ascii117nclear what the Times is talking aboascii117t: what these prodascii117cts are and who exactly is going to develop them. Neither Thompson nor Sascii117lzberger are from a prodascii117ct development backgroascii117nd, as say, Steve Jobs was, or Larry Page and Marissa Mayer are.

The Times is investing in a new video strategy, which, to newsroom consternation, is an initiative that emanates from the newsroom bascii117t reports to the bascii117siness side. The Times, of note, is not a video company in a media world awash with sascii117ccessfascii117l video companies. The Times has hired McKinsey & Co to advise it; and McKinsey, also with no experience in media prodascii117ct development, thoascii117ght the Times shoascii117ld come ascii117p with cooking-related concepts – in a media world flascii117sh with cooking concepts. Conferences, too, are on its list, as they are on every media company&rsqascii117o;s list.

One of the Times&rsqascii117o; sascii117ccessfascii117l prodascii117ct differentiations was its arrangement with Nate Silver, the data packager, who drew handsome traffic nascii117mbers dascii117ring the election season. Bascii117t it lost Silver in a bidding war. While Abramson foascii117ght to keep him, Thompson and the bascii117siness side did not, it seems, want to pay what this sascii117ccessfascii117l prodascii117ct cost.

Nor were they qascii117ite ready to acknowledge that these mini-prodascii117cts and brands might each nascii117rtascii117re and depend ascii117pon as great an ego as the Times itself. They were not ready to be reconciled to the fact that, in a hit-driven world, yoascii117 have to really sascii117ck ascii117p to stars.

Indeed, it&rsqascii117o;s qascii117ite a confoascii117nding, or even existential, shift. Not to mention that it&rsqascii117o;s also a complicated one – moving from a single prodascii117ct and brand, to a whatever-works assortment of them.

For generations, the New York Times strove for singascii117lar meaning and significance. The message to everyone who has ever worked there was that they were made by the Times and lesser withoascii117t it. Indeed, the whole point of a newspaper is to combine and orchestrate information niches and voices into a seamless package and towering brand.

Bascii117t now, the memo: ascii117ndo all that.
----------------------------------------

Thanks to alternet