In response to one of my recent posts in this series on how digital is the future of journalism, I was asked in the comments on LinkedIn what is the “revenue model” for legacy media publishers that will make it profitable enough for them to make the necessary switch to digital. (The implication being that they won't do it otherwise).If I had the answer to that question for every legacy media publisher, of course, I'd be rich. The only real answer is that each organization must start working on such a plan now, not tomorrow, not next month, not next year, if they are to avoid repeating the mistakes made 20 years ago when Craigslist destroyed paid print classified ad revenue.So, let me turn the question on its head for a minute: How are legacy media, particularly print, going to make money if they do NOT switch to digital?They answer clearly is that they can't and won't. The longer they wait, though, to follow the example of The New York Times and The Washington Post, the longer they will continue to bleed red ink, jeopardize the future of their business, and try to cover up their mistakes by laying off journalists.The enlightened owners of those two U.S. newspaper giants saw several years ago that it was necessary to invest heavily in digital. It wasn't easy, or cheap. But they did what was necessary. Now, they are making substantial profits from that inspired decision. They hired more journalists. They beefed up their digital operations and got rewarded.They didn't have a magic bullet or a guaranteed revenue model when they made those decisions. They trusted that expanded — not contracted — journalism would generate more digital ad revenue and more digital subscriptions. That's exactly what happened.No one can seriously believe that print advertising, which cratered as a result of COVID-19 after tumbling sharply for decades, is going to return as the entire world goes more digital.Canadian media owners are not even pretending this will happen. But their only action so far this year has been to go cap-in-hand to Ottawa for cash handouts and to pray for action against the evil of Facebook and Google.(I make one exception for the new owners of The Toronto Star who are least talking about the need to move more quickly to digital).No one can seriously expect there will be a profitable business in 2025 (or so) by putting ink on dead trees and delivering it to your home as if this is still 1950.So, there's no alternative but to go digital. The sooner, the better for these print dinosaurs.The way major media organizations are turning a blind eye to this reality is eerily reminiscent of what happened to print classified ads at the start of the digital age in the mid-1990s.As Aron Pilohofer argues in this article titled No, Craigslist did not kill local news:Fellow journalists: Do you really truly believe that, if not for Craigslist, little kids would be riding around your neighborhood today tossing thick newspapers onto your lawn laden with classified ads? If so, we need to talk.Pilhofer, the James B. Steele Chair in Journalism Innovation at the Klein College of Media and Communications at Temple University, laments that when the Internet started to be the main source of classified advertising — after all it was quickly searchable and either free or low-cost compared to the high prices then prevailing in print — the media owners of the day did nothing.He continues:For a long time, I wondered why newspaper executives simply sat there and watched as Craigslist ate into their bottom line, much in the way Google and Facebook are today on the advertising side. I used to wonder why they didn't see the obvious danger a product like Craigslist posed.Having spent a bit of time on the business side of two publications, I've changed my view. Newspaper executives absolutely saw the threat. They just didn't (or couldn't) do anything about it for the same reason that any incumbent industry seemingly sits there waiting to be disrupted: The profit margins of the old thing were just too good.Until they weren't. And by then it's too late.Where I agree mostly with Pilhofer is that the same thing is happening again today in Canada.Media owners have been saying for decades that the future is digital. But they can't – or won't spend the money to – do anything as their legacy industry dies.So while neither I, nor anyone, have a “revenue model” that can work for all legacy publishers, what I do argue is that media owners have really only two options:
- Start the painful — likely expensive in the short-term — process of moving their journalism to the digital world. It won't work for everyone. But it will work for those who invest wisely, who know their audience's needs, who come up with a specific plan, and who aren't afraid to take a chance. The Times and The Post have proved it can work. You won't find a 100% foolproof revenue model. You just need to act.
- The alternative is to continue to invest only in legacy platforms that will die within five years, destroying thousands more journalism jobs in the process and leaving the public less informed than today.