Where next for the cash cows?

So where next for regional newspapers?

We've had a week of speculation since figure for the likes of Newsquest and Northcliffe were released - both showing what we all knew really.

In summary, newspapers are still making quite a lot of money.

However, is has been the way for years, the profit margin is the issue for men in nice suits sitting in head offices up and down the land.

Among the latest to talk shit about the industry was a chap from Northcliffe, a man so nondescript I can't even remember his name.

Anyway, he said consolidation was needed in the industry, despite the fact that consolidation has been rampant in newspapers for years and look where it's got us.

He told Press Gazette: "Our attitude is we think it [consolidation] is worthwhile and a good thing for the industry because it will create bigger businesses who are more able to make the transition to the brave new world.

"There’s obviously going to be a further transition…We are not going to be the consolidator. We are not going to be acquiring other regional newspapers companies to consolidate with Northcliffe.

"I think we have other opportunities in the group for investment. But we are very content to go on operating Northcliffe, it makes good cash flow and so on."

Okay, so let's actually tell it like it is, shall we? Northcliffe thinks consolidation is needed, but won't be consolidating.

Does anyone else smell a 'come and get me' plea?

No wonder he thinks consolidation is needed when clearly Northcliffe would be hugely interested in getting rid of a cash cow that is struggling to produce milk in the quantities of years ago.

Let's not forget, it was Northcliffe who was for sale only a few years ago, only not sold.

So don't patronise us.

Meanwhile, in newsrooms up and down the country, we are being told of the continued squeeze on 'revenues' and the need to make cuts, take furlough leave and such like.

However, in among the headlines of Northcliffe effectively being up for sale, and the drop in 'revenues', it seems to have been missed that Northcliffe's operating profit last year increased - yes, increased - by 24% to £30 million.

That is on revenue down 10% year on year.

So just how hard is it out there? Being complete arses has earned Northcliffe £30 million, an increase.

Now I realise £20 million is a tiny sum of money, but why not just make that much profit in what is widely regarded as the worst recession we've seen, and keep a few of the jobs you've not replaced, or pay those who remain a little bit more?

I know, it's a crazy thought...

But the reality is that the newspaper industry has been a cash cow for a long time, and we - as well as out papers - are simply being milked for all we are worth until profits drop to, oh, I don't know, £10 million? Then we'll be sold off for pennies to another group who will do more of the same.

Depressing, I know, and if anyone can give me an alternative view of the future, I'd love to hear from you.

Email me at thehaplesshack@gmail.com, or chat to me on Twitter, @haplesshack

And a funny new year...

Well hello all and a happy new year and all that balls to everyone who actually reads this.

Due to a distinct lack of inspiration induced by a festive season spent bathing in copious amounts of alcohol and unsuitable food, I am falling back on the classic new year filler - a round-up of the previous year!

Yes, that's right, here are a couple of my favourite piles of shit from 2010. Enjoy!

Plus, I've saved a new one for last so don't despair!

Not strictly a journalistic error, but what the hell, it is funny... Is Facebook trying to tell me something?



Got to love this picture to accompany a story about undercover police officers. My, how they're getting hard to spot!



A rather over-enthusiastic columnist here it seems. Thanks for the Tweet, you know who you are!



And a special mention to those lovely people who follow me on Twitter, @haplesshack, just because they are special people:

@victoriaraimes
@fleetstreetblue
@nottshospice
@daviesshell
@NewsShopperJR
@ellastella
@obicolkenobi
@hizzary
@SeamusOKeeffe
@JTheBossRoss
@thegirlsilver
@PogalJoners
@Bezeb
@HullMailNews

Obviously, they may be mental, but I still love them.

Have a good one - and don't forget to keep your spots and any other rants coming to thehaplesshack@gmail.com should you wish to!

The Secret of Daily Mail's Success...

Sorry to harp on about the Daily Mail website - actually, scrap that, I'm not sorry at all - but it really is becoming such a beacon of excellence for both newspapers, news websites and newspaper executives who are stuck in the pit of trying to justify everything, to everyone, all the time, even though they have no fucking clue what they're actually talking about.

I give you Mail Online publisher Martin Clarke, and his recent address at the Society of Editors Conference.

He said: "Mail Online has succeeded because it does what newspapers have always done, it tells fascinating stories clearly with great headlines, punchy words and brilliant pictures."

Let's take this one step at a time...

"Mail Online has succeeded because...":

* "fascinating stories": Really? Where? A quick look today reveals 13, yes, 13 celebrity-based stories in the top half of the Mail homepage. There are nine 'news' stories in the main section.

* "great headlines": Again, really? Headlines today include: 'Rent boy quizzed by police over claims that husband of honeymoon murder victim paid him for sex sessions', 'Big freeze returns tonight with EIGHT inches of snow and temperatures of -10C on the way, prompting fears it will eclipse the winter of 1962-3' and 'He has an army of liberal millionaire supporters bit WikiLeaks boss is STILL trying to raise £240,000 in cash for his bail'.

Yeah, fuckin' fascinating those Martin...

* "punchy words": See above.

* "brilliant pictures": See below - I'll let you judge.



Now, to all those executives now knocking one off over Clarke's genius thinking and incredible figures on Mail Online, I give you the response.

* "Please, stop wallowing in a vat of your own clueless thinking and realise that whacking celebrity names in headlines, along with words like "rent boy" and "sex sessions" (preferably together) does not indicate some kind of genius online thinking, it indicates a blatant attempt to produce plastic figures based on wankers who know nothing about anything reading shit stories."

If that is the future, then you can stick it right up your arse and we should all quit now.

Thank you Mr Clarke for killing our industry. Still, you'll be long fucking dead with millions in the bank when the final person left trying to preserve some sort of integrity is handed a P45.

Still, at least he has some sense of how shit his own site is.

"I don't think we'll ever win any web design awards."

No shit Sherlock.

Mail order from the Daily Mail website?

Now, the Daily Mail website is something I've written about before.

Namely, HERE and HERE.

However, a recent article from The Guardian made me revisit it today.

Basically, as we already knew, the site has become quite a big player as far as 'news' sites go. I use the word news in inverted commas because, quite frankly, the lack of news on the site is my major gripe - and possibly the obvious reason behind the site's success.

While you do get some stories, you don't really get news, as such, in any prominent position, or in other words, anywhere that may attract a real news reader.



That is, of course, unless you count anything mentioning I'm a Celebrity, X Factor, chavvy footballers or benefit cheats as high-ranking on the news agenda, which sadly, I don't.

So I thought I'd just write this as an adendum to my previous post if you like, to say that the Mail website is the X Factor of news sites.



Yes, it appeals to the masses, and you can't knock it for what it does, it does well.

But when you look at it for any actual value, it's dog shit.

Sadly, this is something we're now seeing mirrored across the DMGT group's regional newspaper arm, Northcliffe.

ThisIs sites across the land now bear a little section on the bottom of their front pages titled 'SHOWBIZ'.

Basically, this is simply an excuse to post headlines that will attract the chav Googler to the site.

But while it may bump numbers for the site - the below is from www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk but it is everywhere - it has absolutely nothing to do with that area.

Just as the Daily Mail website has absolutely nothing to do with news.



I compare this bandwagon thinking to what the likes of Northcliffe are doing to our newspapers.

They have something that works (name me a site doing ONLY solid, regularly-updated local news that is falling in visitor numbers), yet far from being happy with that, they need to have more, more, more, and some complete fuckwit has told them Google looks in headlines and picture captions for searched terms and the even bigger dipshit who actually makes decisions has jumped on the bandwagon.

As with their newspapers, they'll soon release (too late, I would assume) that this will only work in certain circumstances and the gains will be limited.

Just as cutting staff back continually will when the papers are folded, despite still making a healthy profit.

Still, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially when the old tricks brought in 30% profits for them knowing fuck all...

Here's the link to the previous Daily Mail website article again if you missed it the first time!

And don't forget, follow me on Twitter and you'll get a mention every now and again!

@haplesshack is my address. You can debate my 'the Daily Mail website is dog shit' verdict on there right now if you like...

Here we go again on our own...

Well, well, well, just when we thought it was safe to come out from under the desk (where we all hide from time to time in the hope of avoiding the MD's eyes when he's playing ennie-meenie-minie-mo to select the next round of redundencies) it appears Northcliffe have once again opened that particular can of 'further efficiencies' worms...

Yep, another 50-plus subbing jobs are set to go across the Northcliffe stable in a fresh bid to save (and make) even more money.

While many business gurus will say that these things will happen in "times of economic downturns" and other such bollocks, the previous set of redundancies and creation of subbing 'hubs' seems also to have been abandoned, suggesting at best shortsightedness, at worst, a complete balls up of a business plan.

Why, all of a sudden, would a decision taken - at great expense and moral-sapping staff costs - less than 12 months ago, suddenly be a bad idea?

I just don't understand it.

And nor, it appears, does anyone at Northcliffe.

Just read that information again...

"The Plymouth hub is set to lose all responsibility for production of the Plymouth Herald, Torquay Herald Express, Exeter Express and Echo and Mid-Devon Gazette, all of which may move to Bristol."

So, that makes sense, they're moving Plymouth away from Plymouth and up to Bristol, which will, obviously, potentially see the need to lose a few subs from Plymouth.

Yet...

"Around 20 of the job losses are likely to occur at the Bristol hub, with responsibility for producing the Western Daily Press and Western Morning News moving to Plymouth."

Right, so the production of these newspapers are swapping 'hubs', yet that means staff can be lost?

How? This is not explained. Why would it not make sense to just leave them where they are and cut staff, rather than, as the evidence above indicates to me, swap some duties around and say this means you need less people?

If you need less people to sub the Herald, then come out and say it.

And of you need less people to sub the Western Daily Press etc, then again, say so.

You would think it could be down to buildings or something, not having enough room for all of the over-proportioned subs or something, but anyone who has ever seen either the Plymouth or the Bristol buildings knows that's a feeble argument at best.

Instead, they've played newspaper musical chairs and also added in to the mix the possibility of reporters writing their own headlines and typing up copy directly in to template pages.

This is a whole other argument, but does also serve to highlight how ridiculous this plan is.

Okay, so the thinking is that we need less subs because reporters are entering their copy directly in to a page.

Fine, disregarding the enforced absence of any kind of creativity in page layout, but who is checking that copy?

The reporter? The news desk?

In theory, we all know two people checking the copy should work, but it doesn't.

That's what copy subs are there for. If they weren't needed at all, they would have been cut before, believe me.

No, what all of these things indicate is not that the business is necessarily struggling (although I'm sure all are experiencing a drop in profits), but rather that the newspaper groups have finally given up pretending that they care about the quality of their offerings any longer.

Perhaps, initially, when sales figures started to drop, they did think quality was important and that producing a good paper would bring back readers (you know, they only made half of us redundant at first!).

But it hasn't, and this seems a clear example of a publisher saying 'bollocks to it, whatever we do, noone's buying it, so let's put out any old shit'.

And what hope is there for the reporters and subs after this?

None, surely.

No, what you need to invest in now is lots of middle-managers with ipads who can walk around and sell digital something-or-others.

While it gives no comfort to anyone facing the prospect of yet another round of redundancies, the same old result will come.

Those who should go; won't.

Does anyone else feel like giving up and letting the industry wallow in the shit it has so eagerly created for itself?

---

Oh, as usual, here's a plug for Twitter! @haplesshack - do log on there and let me know what you think of all these changes Northcliffe staff - and those beyond!

Some funnies ahead of Friday!

Well, as we all know, a Thursday is basically a Friday in newsrooms up and down the country due to the classic 'final day wind-down'.

So in anticipation of the start of the drinking, here are a couple of funnies. I'll try and get back tomorrow for something for the weekend, as it were...

First up is the delightful Press Gazette (the magazine that is officially not as good as it used to be, like Viz), which must have been having a slow day on this occasion...



Yep, that is the homepage.

And just to round off this quick-fire bulletin, the new BBC News website had something of a glitch on only the second day post-launch.

The new layout shows off images really well, unfortunately...

Needless to say, this was rectified later.

Tally ho!

New BBC News site vs Telegraph Online

Well well, here it is at last.

After countless public information blogs and even some pre-launch screenshots, the new BBC News website confronted users this morning as they browsed for their morning fill of news alongside their Weetabix.

And what do we think? Well, I was surrounded by an array of reactions, from "cack" to many, much warmer-sounding "ooooh"s and even one "why have they done this to me?"...

For me, I don't mind it at all. It seems to be pretty reactionary (and what, in the world of news website design isn't?), which is more of a good thing when it comes to BBC sites in the UK, as they don't have to factor in advertising - the number 1 complaint of any web user when asked.

So it's clean and reasonably appealing, which in fairness, the BBC site has always been.

The first thing that gleans any kind of derision from this viewer is the sheer size of the main headline, in this case 'UK employment declines to 2.47m'*.

And it feels, even though comparing new to old is not the case, like there are fewer stories on the front.

This is because of the top story - two sub-stories - list of others approach being centre-stage.

Previously, the list of other stories was segregated, to the right-hand side of the page.

Now, it is right there in front of me, and a lack of images makes me feel like it is an after-thought. But that is just me. If a list of stories is to be a focal point, give it something to appeal to the reader.

I also don't like 'Also in the news' being so prominent (did you see what I did there, did you?). Again, this, to me, means a section full of stupid stories that no one knew what to do with, and I perceive them to not really belong in the news, but instead in some God-awful 'Funny news' or 'Weird news' section.

I wish the BBC would lose a touch of superiority complex and call it what it is; the 'Stuff that isn't really news but you might laugh at and send to your mates boosting our numbers and justifying why we put this crap up', but I understand that may contain a few too many characters.

Another thing I find slightly patronising, and a classic reaction to reports of clicks and reader response, is the sheer size of the 'Most Popular' panel. Does it really need to be so large?

I realise click reports will show this to be THE panel on the homepage - although again, the Beeb retains an intellectual standpoint by putting the doubtless under-used 'Features & Analysis' panel above it - but honestly, if we are struggling to see it, we'll have our eyes tested.

The mid-page barrier, a customizable insert for weather and news from various regional and local BBC sites, is actually quite nice, also retaining some of the 'elsewhere' links from the old site.
Below here though, is where it starts to lose the plot for me.

The homepage descends into some sort of half-impression of the Daily Mail site - see here for what I mean - with overblown story summaries (yet none on the main headlines? A compromise would have been nice) in a bid to gain Google hits, and just simple over-population of this area.

It smacks of the developer saying "well, this is where you've lost most visitors, as our research shows most readers will scroll for 1.7534 turns of the little wheel thing on their mouse, so we thought we might as well cram as many keywords as possible into this section".

For me, it looks silly and too slap-dash.

And it also looks like the Telegraph, as the entire site does, far too much.

And the Telegraph constantly freezes my browser, so let's hope this isn't the case with the new BBC News site...

Overall though, there isn't a drastic change here, just a few minor alterations in a bid to catch up to other news sites in terms of volume of content and keywords.

BBC News has long been a reliable and technically-sound site - let's hope it stays that way.

* For the record, a font this big, with the SEO headline is just annoying to me. Get over the SEO thing people, or wait three months, then someone will come up a tag that hides the bit Google searches from us poor readers who have to look at it.

When searchable headlines go mad...

The plight of the sub editor is an oft-heard tale; there aren't enough of them, template pages are killing the art, etc etc.

And while sharing their pain to an extent, it's something that has never really hit home, not being a sub.

But gradually, over the years of growth of news on the interweb, I have come to relate to their issues.

Google. Google. Google. That is all we seem to here now from web gurus across the news globe. Your stories must be 'Googleised', or 'Googleified', or whatever the term is that they shout in my ear and which just doesn't seem to register, having not read 'What iPCmacbookpad?' this month.

Yet this morning, two things on the Daily Mail website caught my eye and summised my growing affection for those bods who sit and correct our stories day in, day out, for little recognition (let's be honest, the amount of changes they make to some copy, they deserve a byline).

Firstly, the Daily Mail site was among the first to cotton on to the benefits of being found by Google, i.e. appearing first in any search gives you the overwhelming majority of clicks from searchers.

So it adapted the way it wrote headlines for stories appearing online, which is fair enough.

However, with other news outlets catching up fast, the Mail has continued to grow its efforts, and quite frankly, the site is becoming one gigantic Google hub.

Repeated links are EVERYWHERE - see a grab below, which shows only a small section of the front page.



I realise it's not very clear, but basically, the Daily Mail homepage seems to have become a page containing hundreds of stories, with hundreds of links to those stories, everywhere!

Apparently, this will score massively with Google, but at what cost?

I do wonder whether anyone reading this site is with me when I say that I get quite frustrated with the same stories appearing everywhere when I'm looking for something else to read?

I've read the top story, so why link to it another four times on the homepage, in prominent positions? It baffles me.

But that is not the only 'Googleisation' tool that concerns me. The tailored headlines are now so ridiculous they take up half the page!



That headline, to me, is just too damn long.

Yes, I can see that includes loads of things people might be searching for; I can understand (despite the protestations of our web chap that it is dreadfully complicated) that people probably do search for 'Kylie concerts' and 'cocktails' a lot - and probably together a surprising amount too.

But was it really worth it for a four-deck headline that just looks a bit silly? I'm probably living in the dark ages (probably?) but for me, it wasn't.

I'm in no way averse to the joys of having a really popular website, but I do still hold a strong amount of pride in the presentation of a story, regardless of whether it is on a piece of paper or a monitor.

So I do share the pain of a sub when I see headlines like this. Where has the skill gone?

Yet as if the web people at the Mail were aware of my growing sadness, they provided me with something to laugh at...

Lovely. Thank you.

Even more news oddities...

You see? I told you I'd find more, and you are a darling bunch for responding to my plea for help so quickly!

So onwards and well, downwards I suppose...

First up, the ever-optimistic http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/, which we are told has launched a revolutionary news shopping site.

I hear your gasps, and indeed, I gasped too, as I was looking forward to seeing what revolutionary enhancement they had come up with.

Alas, disappointment...

Yep, just an adopted page from Amazon. Still, I'm sure the good people who are 'getting' Surrey are glad they can now 'get' their DVDs alongside their local news...

Elsewhere, job ads are not, or are, what they used to be.

Regional newspaper site Hold The Front Page, often the first port of call for the many, many glitzy and glamorous opportunities on offer in the world of journalism carried an ad that intrigued me for a 'Club Reporter'.

A typo, me thought, but on closer inspection, that was indeed exactly what they were after!

And quite frankly, who wouldn't want a job working alongside the comedy genius who came up with "Send us your pitch"? Lovely stuff.

I couldn't let this bumper day of fun go by without mentioning our dear friends over at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ now could I (and there's more on them soon)?

Yep, the ever-enjoyable (or ever-cringe-worthy) TiG (ahhh) Blog continues to amaze with its biting wit and enlightenment of the workings of the site (when was the last time anything about the site and not the writer's tedious life was ever mentioned?).

Anyway, this particular piece of scripture really caught my eye.

Yes, I must admit that my life and understanding of thisisgloucestershire.co.uk is much richer now that I know this chap doesn't like Britain's Got Talent, or, more precisely, the acts he mentions (I personally wouldn't know any of them if I fell over them).

However, being a journalist, I do read newspapers and couldn't fail to spot the misspelling in the blog of the act Spelbound (correct spelling of the act), of course, spelt incorrectly as "spellbound".

Nothing big in that, you may think, and of course, we all make mistakes.

But what provoked me into commenting is that a few steps down is this gem:

In it, the writer (I presume it's always the same person, otherwise this irony is completely lost?), while discussing the literary growth of his offspring (why do we care again?) professes himself to be "a graduate of English Literature" and "a wordsmith".

A wordsmith would surely check the spelling of a TV talent show act before publishing?

Why of why don't people realise that if they are commenting on something, particularly if they're slating it, that they perhaps need to check if they're spelling names correctly?

Anyhow, I'll attempt another blog today if possible, I know I have neglected you for a while...

The light is brighter from the outside...

It's funny how people suddenly become so critical once they leave a particular branch of the industry isn't it?

Case in point - Marc Reeves, former editor of the Birmingham Post.

In his blog, he speaks about how newspapers (including those under his leadership) have singularly failed to make the most of the internet.

While his thoughts may be exactly right, I do have one question to ask:

WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN?

It's all well and good moaning after the fact but let's be honest, an editor has at least some sway in his own newsroom, even when it comes to the digital offering?

Anyway, let's have a look at what he actually said, at least that way we can nod along and laugh...

"I spent the last 15 years of my newspaper career regularly attending industry conferences in which the threats and opportunities of the internet were endlessly discussed and analysed.

"Pretty much everything that has come to pass was predicted, but what did the big newspaper groups do? Very little that was right, it turns out."

Again, why didn't you, as the person attending these conferences (at no extra cost to your employer I presume) suggest doing anything differently? Or did you and were ignored?

Anyhoo, it continues...

"Saddled by a shareholder base that had grown used to the cash cow returns of a monopoly, the regional newspaper industry in particular was structurally incapable of adopting the entrepreneurial approach that is the only option available when almost every aspect of your business model is rendered obsolete."

Preach on, brother.

Advertising models, editorial models, everything should have changed. While it can be argued that certain elements of news content was, is, and always will be pretty much standard, something, anything, should have changed at some point.

Instead, we have the desperation of blogs, desperation and copycat websites called thisiswhateversomeoneelsehasalreadydonebetterthanus...

Marc makes some very good points very well, yet singularly fails to address what he would have done differently (it's worth noting he is now working for the thebusinessdesk, yawn).

Yet newspaper groups should listen to someone finally free from the shackles of managing directors who have no clue, advertising directors who continue to see online adverts as a 'bolt-on' for in-paper displays and the likes.

It is not easy to theorise that there are many, many other editors, still in office, who realise that they are effectively stewards of a sinking ship.

However, rather than sitting in another meeting talking about it and doing actually nothing, why doesn't some maverick actually try something different?

Why won't someone look to the future? And I mean actually look, not just babble on talking complete shit about how newspapers will be dead soon and we are all going to die, actually see how this could work?

No, they won't, because they have bonuses, pensions and shitty company cars to consider, as do many of us (not me, but you know, trying not to simply batter middle management here, oh fuck it, go on then...).

It's a shame that while these newspaper groups were enjoying the fruits of a booming market, they never actually utilised much of the talent that existed (and perhaps still does?) in the lower ranks.

No, they promoted a bunch of pricks instead, didn't they?

Sorry this has been a bit worthy-wank, I will be funny as soon as I can. Well, I'll try, you know what I mean...