The Death Throes of Print?

2008 Dec 17
Comments 58
Published In Business, Design, Web
« Prev
Next »

For years people have declared that print is dead, but perhaps these are now its final days.

Nearly every morning you can find a new article about some publication closing up their print editions and moving solely over to the web. The failing economy is an easy direction to point the blame, but it’s likely just the last nail in the coffin.

It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The Christian Science Monitor and PC Magazine move to the tubes. The Tribune files for bankruptcy protection. Once great newsstands close as people get more of their news online. Google is digitizing books and now magazines too, bringing some of the last of the information onto this superhighway. These are some huge shakeups, but the “printed” word isn’t going to go away anytime soon.

So What?

All publications have websites already, so what’s remarkable about this? The web was supposed to be the savior for publications and their diminishing print readerships. The problem is, few have invested any real time or talent to make their websites even half as remarkable as their print editions. Most publishers seem satisfied to blindly dump their prized content into a lifeless shell of a site. Why should we give a damn about your site when you clearly don’t?

Momentum

In an economic crisis, it’s common to see competition decrease because more companies are forced to close. But a byproduct of this is that it allows those that remain to see the way forward more clearly, bringing about innovation. I believe the decrease in competition may be applicable in a broad sense, but due to the generally lower physical overhead for a website as compared to a print publication, competition may remain constant online, if not actually rise. As more publications move exclusively online, and potentially do it successfully, momentum for other publications to see it as a viable alternative will increase. And this is where it gets interesting.

Potential

Competition makes for innovation. Without the print edition to serve as the flagship product, the website will no longer be a second class citizen or a quaint add-on to a business model; it will become the business model. Companies will need to rethink their strategies and goals for the web, and ways to distinguish themselves. If a publication or a few happen to break out of the current mold and start innovating, this may cause other publications, whether still maintaining print editions or not, to become competitive online as well. Once a publication forms a real connection with readers by giving them a reason to care about their website, other publications will be forced to do the same.

The medium of print will not die, but its spot atop the mountain of mainstream content distribution is in its final days. This could bring about a rebirth of design innovation online. We can help bring about change and find new ways to connect with audiences. This is an exciting time to be a designer, assuming we can all hang onto our jobs long enough to see what happens.

Comments 58
Design Tags Black, Photo, Red, White
« Prev
Next »

58 Comments

Permalink for this comment Ben Carlson says: December 17, 2008

Totally agree that this is an exciting time. When something (print media) is forced upon something else (the web), adaptation will occur, and I have hope that really awesome things will come from these shifts.
Permalink for this comment Lieven says: December 17, 2008

Last I had an argument with an artist. He claimed internet is just an extension of a telephone-line. That it isn’t a medium like for example painting or such. He stated there had to be a bearer before “art” is possible.

It seems to me everybody fears the internet and the possible effects on the rest.
Why? Internet just stands next to the rest, it isn’t a dictator.
Permalink for this comment Chris Johnson says: December 17, 2008

I can tell you from personal experience that I’ve had a deluge of new web project requests that are directly tied to the tough economic times. I think printed work is starting to become a luxury.
Permalink for this comment nb3004 says: December 17, 2008

Thank you for putting this into such a clear perspective. This really is an exciting time to be a designer, especially someone with experience creating information/writing based systems. I will say it can be very discouraging trying to work with these old media companies. I worked with a successful blog in Buffalo, NY and we had a meeting with the large news paper and it was very clear that the web dept. was understaffed and governed completely by the people who ran the print division. Its a shame too because the amount of content and resources a newspaper has can create very a dynamic experience that shares news in new and exciting ways.
Permalink for this comment Ryan Merrill says: December 17, 2008

I agree.

We’re entering a very exciting time to be working on the Web, especially if you are luck enough to be working for a publication that is serious about its Web content.

Like Jason pointed out, I think the best consistently great online publication is the NYTimes. But even they are far from perfect.

Saying that, there’s nothing like picking up a well-designed printed publication.

We’re beginning to see these two living in harmony and I think in the future it will only improve.
Permalink for this comment Bridget Stewart says: December 17, 2008

The grid on NYTimes is lovely, but it still appears to be a print publication “crammed” into an online one. While it may be a good design, I don’t consider it “innovative.” I’m not trying to knock the design, but my first impression of it is: “all that content shoved into a space – neatly, of course.”

It’s a bit overwhelming at first glance. In no way is my assessment a slight against the design or the designer. You do the best you can with the constraints placed upon you and what you have to work with at the time. I recognize the labor of love on the NYTimes design, but it still feels very heavily influenced by the print medium. As if the constraint was, “Make this look like a newspaper.” Only, a website isn’t a newspaper.

I am of the opinion that The Morning News does a very good job of being an online publication as opposed to being a publication that happens to be online. The Morning News does an excellent job of providing content with the medium taken into consideration. There’s a lovely grid with a great use of whitespace. Additionally, there is some fancy footwork with the typography without getting too cluttered.

I think that the decision makers who are migrating from print to an online format require education on the differences in the mediums. Just screaming that the two are different isn’t going to be enough to propel us forward. Some good compare/contrast dialogue might be beneficial.

I’m not accusing anyone in this discussion of being a screamer. I am merely pointing out that a lot of that goes on, with no benefit to anyone. :)
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 17, 2008

@ Bridget Stewart :

The grid on NYTimes is lovely, but it still appears to be a print publication “crammed” into an online one.

I didn’t get into it, but I was more referring to how much the NYT has invested in doing things differently online. This doesn’t only trickle down to the design, which as you mentioned, has some limitations, but more about their use of social media conventions and interactive content. Out of all of the mainstream publications, the NYT is definitely leading the charge by seeing their website as a platform and not just another distribution channel.

I think that the decision makers who are migrating from print to an online format require education on the differences in the mediums. Just screaming that the two are different isn’t going to be enough to propel us forward. Some good compare/contrast dialogue might be beneficial.

I absolutely agree, BUT, this is something we’ve been beating the same drum over for years. The people I know in publishing have been trying to educate and inform those in power, but because the print industry is old and deeply entrenched in their ways, it’s a big change to make. The web has long seemed like just another flash in the pan to them. They are finally going to need to listen to the people who know what the web can do in order to survive.

(great points, BTW)
Permalink for this comment Beth says: December 17, 2008

More print publications need to reexamine their approach to online vehicles instead of attempting to regurgitate all of their content into some cramped frankenstein of a CMS and banner rotater.

They’re not taking into account the difference between how people flip through a news paper versus how people digest information over the web.

See the Cleveland Plain Dealer for an example of how not to do it. The homepage looks like a domain squatter portal.
Permalink for this comment Paulo Pereira says: December 17, 2008

I don’t see a problem with the end of print for newspapers or magazines. It’s market demand, there isn’t nothing to do against it. But I agree they could improve their design, making it more appropriate for a periodic publication.

Jason, your site serves as example and inspiration. It’s the “living” proof that print design skills can be sucessfully applied to this medium, even with all its restrictions — and everyday they’re becoming less and less, with sIFR, web standards and a more competitive browser market.

I think it’s clear that the print won’t die. Ever. A computer isn’t a proper way to read books. And the magazines where design really matters will keep printing. Because the ones who care about those matters will still pay for a great print edition.

P.S: Jason, I have a design question for you: why the indented second paragraph, since it’s already line-spaced from the first one, the main sentence?
Permalink for this comment tnoinu says: December 17, 2008

Great article, hits the nail right on the head. Especially nb3004 comment on how the web divisions in large newspapers are almost completely governed by print divisions. I can personally a test I have experienced the same thing. I’ve seen nothing but struggle between the print and web side, for the fact that most large newspapers are run by individuals that have grown up in the print world and the old adage of “its hard to teach an old dog new tricks” rings true.

With that being said I do also think we’re entering an exciting time to be working on the Web especially if you work in the newspaper industry, I still think it might take a little bit more time to open the eyes of all the higher ups but with advertising revenue and circulation declining it will happen nonetheless.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 17, 2008

@ Paulo Pereira :

P.S: Jason, I have a design question for you: why the indented second paragraph, since it’s already line-spaced from the first one, the main sentence?

Just playfully emulating the print version of the NYT I get every week :)
Permalink for this comment AL says: December 17, 2008

This 500 years old chap will live a happy life until the Web toddler learns how to walk. Not anytime soon, don’t worry :)
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 17, 2008

@ AL :

This 500 years old chap will live a happy life until the Web toddler learns how to walk. Not anytime soon, don’t worry :)

That’s the problem, AL, it’s happening whether or not the Web is ready. It’s going to come down to a financial decision, not one of capability. And to be clear, it’s actually the publications that aren’t “ready”, not the medium :)
Permalink for this comment Morning Toast says: December 17, 2008

Working for a local newspaper/media company in Ohio, I can vouch for print’s inability to embrace the web as a platform to deliver content.

People here still see the web as an after thought and the process of getting content to the web is all automated with little attention paid to it, often resulting in misformatted pages and presentation that sucks noodles. Mismatched type sizes, sub-par image quality, and…it’s just ugly.

There’s no reason a newspaper company can’t survive on-line. But the trick is to possibly shift the idea from print first to web first, print second. I don’t see a newspaper company as a printing company – I see it as a news company. How you deliver that content doesn’t really matter.

Of course, this newspaper talks about messages boards and article comments like they’re the next hot thing. If nothing else, that shows you how removed from the solution they are. Not to mention banner ads are their solution to all web revenue.

If they took more care in the presentation of their news on the web, I think papers would see revenue. Sites like JSM’s prove that you can marry design and writing on-line successfully. Papers just need to step up and do it on a larger scale.
Permalink for this comment Patrick Algrim says: December 17, 2008

I think we’ll still see print around. I personally love print and the design of print. While I rarely do buy anything print, I think it’s mostly because I am such a Web person, and must realize not everyone is like me. Awesome post!

Jason, I also really love that for each “post” you have a different style. I would love to see a tutorial on how you set that up. Thanks Jason!
Permalink for this comment Kevin Collins says: December 17, 2008

While I’m a new visitor here, I (just this morning) became aware of PC Magazine going online only. As a reader of that magazine, I truly hope they do more than simply create a PDF of the future issues and send it out. I find those things harder to read than the paper versions…don’t know why.

I hope that news, information and other companies previously print only can take a look at this very blog article. Its layout reminds me of a proper newspaper layout but with enough pizazz and style to keep me reading it online instead of wishing it was print.

Great job on the layout and for raising an issue that should be brought up.
Permalink for this comment Mike Anderson says: December 17, 2008

Just this morning I was trying to find where it was snowing in Seattle. None of the major news outlets had a decent answer. I was able to search Twitter, and get a good answer immediately.
Permalink for this comment Adam Polselli says: December 17, 2008

A lot of people here have mentioned that the newspapers should step up and do things the way Jason is doing on his site. I absolutely love Jason’s use of art direction, but I have a difficult time seeing this as a viable solution for online newspapers. It’s one thing to put out a single article once a week, but for a newspaper that puts out hundreds of articles every few days, I don’t think a solution like Jason’s is completely viable.

I’m a firm believer in “never say never,” and I truly think that any task can be accomplished if one tries hard enough, so I hate to say that newspapers could never do what Jason is doing with his website. Every printed newspaper that’s put out is already specifically formatted for that day’s content, so why not on the web?

I think one of the major problems is that once a newspaper is designed and printed, that’s it. That day’s paper is complete, and it’s time to move on to the next. Online, however, stylesheets need to be archived, and any future changes to a master stylesheet need to play nice with all of the article-specific stylesheets that came before it. Of course, there’s always the solution of archiving old designs and starting fresh with new ones (like Zeldman does on his website), but for a publication as large and complex as, say, The New York Times, this would be a monumental and convoluted task.

I hate to say it, but right now, templates and content management systems are the closest thing we have to the drag-and-drop abilities of WYSIWYG apps for print design. I might argue with you, Jason, that while the publishers aren’t ready for the move to the Web, perhaps the medium isn’t all that ready either. At least not for what many of the readers here seem to want, which is for online newspapers to be as flexible and changing as their analog counterparts.

Most of this was a stream of consciousness, and I guess what I’ve come to now is that the Web is a whole new beast to be tackled. Morning Toast, above, said “I don’t see a newspaper company as a printing company – I see it as a news company,” and I have to agree. In making the move to the Web, publications can’t simply reproduce the print versions of their stuff. They have to completely rethink the organization and presentation of that content. I think publishers that realize this, and hire the right people for the job (Web people, like us) will do well in this new era of online media.

By the way, beautiful post, Jason. Keep it up. :)
Permalink for this comment nb3004 says: December 17, 2008

@Adam Polselli We’re not completely talking about design here. While most newspapers need to update their sites to look more like a website and less like a newspaper, the bigger issue is business model. Newspaper’s need to adapt and completely change the way they operate by adopting the web and building / integrating web tools. Look at Outside.in or twitter mashups that cull relevant news. The way we become aware of news is changing at breakneck speeds and if newspapers want to survive they need to adapt at a faster pace.
Permalink for this comment BP says: December 17, 2008

I started working for a large publication company a while back and this was precisely the problem they are having. Online is their bastard child and the only reason online properties exist is because everybody else has a website. The company itself has 40-50 online properties mainly dealing with news of various types. We’ve fought hard to convince them to make a stronger migration online. Print is their ‘bread and butter’ and unfortunately with the financial situation, instead of giving us the manpower and funding we need to make a great product we get our budgets cuts almost to nothing and don’t have sufficient talent to push out a great product or improve what we in a timely fashion.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 18, 2008

@ Adam Polselli : All great points!

Every printed newspaper that’s put out is already specifically formatted for that day’s content, so why not on the web?

If you look at any print newspaper, they work on a rigid template/grid system too. Beyond the main front page, some section front pages, and obviously the more involved weekend editions, newspapers are basically just copy flowed into columns. Applying that same logic, we could keep the general news the same and pay more attention the features and special stories. Just like I do with my site, there are default styles and templates for the content that is more standard, and the option to trump up the design of articles when needed. Not every every article needs to be unique, just the ones that need to be.

I might argue with you, Jason, that while the publishers aren’t ready for the move to the Web, perhaps the medium isn’t all that ready either. At least not for what many of the readers here seem to want, which is for online newspapers to be as flexible and changing as their analog counterparts.

When I say that the medium is ready, what I mean is that the medium is fertile. Just as we can’t judge the possibilities based only on the current capabilities, we have to see that the vast majority of newspapers online have merely been going through the motions by dumping their content into lifeless pages. Their minimum is the bare minimum.

I may only produce an article a week, but I also do this on the side as a hobby. If this were my full time job, and I had a staff, and I wasn’t responsible for the writing too :), we could easily cut through a bunch of articles in a week’s time. My site is just one solution to this problem, but with many brains behind it, newer and better solutions could come about.
Permalink for this comment Daus says: December 18, 2008

What about National Geographic Magazine website? (ngm.com). I think its the best online presence of a magazine/conventional media.
Permalink for this comment Peter V Cook says: December 18, 2008

The problem is, few have invested any real time or talent to make their websites even half as remarkable as their print editions.

Well said
Permalink for this comment Aaron Irizarry says: December 18, 2008

Jason,
Great Read!

I work for an internet marketing agency in California. We currently have a number of IYP/local directories (in the vein of “yelp”, and “insider pages”) plays that we are working on for large publishers.

Many of them are trying to get their hands on a piece of the interweb, hoping that it is the future of their business. with the economy suffering and the web continuing to emerge on an interactive level… the number of publications to go primarily online is only going to increase.

Thanks again for another good read.

~ Aaron I
Permalink for this comment Kurt Cruse says: December 18, 2008

@ Bridget Stewart :

The grid on NYTimes is lovely, but it still appears to be a print publication “crammed” into an online one. While it may be a good design, I don’t consider it “innovative.”

While I see your point here, I also think that masses are used to their physical newspapers. Especially newspapers with dedicated daily readers such as the NYTimes. Designing your website to reflect your current flagship makes for an easier transition. Once your site starts to become the front leader and your readers become used to getting their information there, innovation can then start to push some boundries.
Permalink for this comment Morning Toast says: December 18, 2008

Reading some more feedback to this and Adam talking about newspapers have too much volume to apply design to everything…this is true for the most part, except the next time we pick up a newspaper (or even go to a news site) count how many stories are actually created by that source.

For our paper locally, I’m not sure of the actual ratio, but it seems like almost 50% of the paper is content from other sources (AP, other papers, etc). If news orgs would focus on presenting their content with care (design) I think it can work even in some volume. It may create jobs, who knows!?

The original features in our paper are designed and presented pretty well already. Wire content is just copy/pasted, basically. And that’s fine.
Permalink for this comment John Niedermeyer says: December 18, 2008

Great post, Jason. I’d add a couple of points:

I share your enthusiasm for that day when the digital product overtakes the print edition – there is no question that this will happen, someday. The problem is that online revenue doesn’t come close to touching print, even now. I don’t see how some of the publications that you listed above can suddenly flip a switch and go online-only, without cutting back drastically on staff, foreign bureaus, etc. Nothing will drive away current readers more than gutting what’s at your core. (See Sam Zell…)

So, we can talk about the day when that digital revenue line finally intersects with the declining print revenue line – be it now, 5 years, 10 years or further down the line. But, the trick is how to get to that point while supporting your core purpose and values (i.e., maintaining newsroom staffing levels) – it’s not a switch, there is groundwork to be done. A lot of innovation (design and otherwise) needs to happen to successfully get us to that day, and I fear that many news outlets aren’t investing enough in the right places.

A lot of newspapers today still have separate digital and print newsrooms. Until 18 months ago, my colleagues at New York Times Digital weren’t even in the same building as the reporters, editors and other staff that put the paper out each day. On the print side, they largely went on with the way they’d done things in the years before the web. So, even if you talk about making the web a priority, there remains a certain institutional/cultural inertia at work.

The solution to this problem for the Times was to merge the digital and print newsrooms sooner rather than later, and my personal opinion is that this has led to some amazing collaborations. Each side brings knowledge and experience to the table, and both have a stake in the future of the paper. Organizational structure and proximity matter, and go along way toward moving that “quaint add-on” into the core of the operation.

(These comments are my personal views and not reflective of the Times, my employer.)
Permalink for this comment Pierre Lourens says: December 18, 2008

What about National Geographic Magazine website? (ngm.com). I think its the best online presence of a magazine/conventional media.

National Geographic does have a great presence online, but it pales in comparison to their print edition. I subscribe to National Geographic not only for its excellent content, but also for its simple, creative design. Not to mention, I can literally tote my NatGeo magazine any place I choose, and I am much more willing to peruse the latest issue in the doctor’s office than drag my laptop to the waiting room.

I would argue that print is not dead, but that financial issues are causing media companies to rethink their strategy and provide a site as a supplement to the print edition, not just a replica.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 18, 2008

@ Morning Toast :

The original features in our paper are designed and presented pretty well already. Wire content is just copy/pasted, basically. And that’s fine.

Exactly, an organization could draw a line between stories that need more attention and those that don’t.

@ John Niedermeyer :

You bring up some very good points!

I don’t see how some of the publications that you listed above can suddenly flip a switch and go online-only, without cutting back drastically on staff, foreign bureaus, etc.

Agreed. The case I make for design above is just one of the problems that will need to be tackled. Obviously, I’m just addressing the one that’s of biggest interest for me. I leave others to address problems like continuity, archiving, and advertising.

But, one of the biggest things to also recognize is that more publications haven’t needed to go any further than just slapping ads on their sites. As you’ve said, most of the ad revenue still comes from the print pubs, so the biggest innovation that’s come about from their online ad revenue is throw more and bigger obtrusive ads into their pages. The logic there being if two ads per page don’t bring in the bucks, six surely will!

What this really gets to is what I mention in the article, in the near future the need will actually arise for publication to do this in order to survive. This is going to be a very strong motivator and force companies to figure out new ways to bring in revenue and new ways to connect with their audiences.

(And thumbs up to the NYT, they are definitely one of the only pubs out there that seems to really be making an effort to figure this stuff out.)
Permalink for this comment Chris Meeks says: December 19, 2008

I share your enthusiasm about the future of news on the web, Jason. However, I can’t help but feel bad for all of those print designers that are set in their ways and yet to make the transition.

I started as a print designer, as many did. If I still ONLY understood the print medium, I would feel like my days were numbered. I feel bad for our brethren.

As I wrote here , many university design programs prepare designers for print FIRST, with the web as an afterthough. Understanding HTML and CSS in-depth simply “clutters the aesthetic idea of design” in some of those professors’ minds.

I know that all changes require people to adapt. Some designers will learn the skills necessary to succeed, and others won’t. But I can’t help but feel like the decline of print is basically an obituary for the masses of pure print designers.
Permalink for this comment Clayton Misura says: December 19, 2008

All magazines are not created equal, but in the eyes of the creator, or this particular creative, I must confess I love the medium, as much as the message. I also love that magazines – in print, of course – serve a higher purpose than mass distribution of information (which the Web can trump easily). They satisfy a more primal socio-aesthetic, and not in theGandhian way, well maybe a little bit. I’m referring to the way they look: stacked on my shelves, by my bed, in my washroom, and the peripheral discussion generated by having lots of print loitering around. BUT, I must say, this article made me excited, it made me consider something in a completely new and non-environmentally tinged light. Kudos. Great article.
Permalink for this comment Erwin Heiser says: December 20, 2008

The problem is, few have invested any real time or talent to make their websites even half as remarkable as their print editions.

This reminds me of a recent editor’s note in .net magazine complaining how the number of readers of the magazine wasn’t reflected at all in the number of visitors of the .netmagazine site. While I love the mag, their website leaves me absolutely cold. So yes, print isn’t going anywhere soon but it is facing increasing competition from its online counterpart.
Permalink for this comment Greg Huntoon says: December 21, 2008

You know, I think our trusted online news sources are going to have to step up their game in the very near future as well. They move too slowly, and can’t keep up with groups/services like BreakingNewsOn, and citizen news channels like NowPublic and AssociatedContent. They need to be much more agile.

More to the point of your post…I am saddened to see the decline of printed publications, as I much prefer (outside the breaking news stuff just mentioned) to read articles, editorial, and other great content in newspapers and magazines I can hold. I love turning pages…
Permalink for this comment Steve Brown says: December 21, 2008

The change is proving to be a problem to existing publications for all kinds of reasons, especially for those delivering ‘news’, I used to buy the Guardian every day, I liked their journalists, the political leanings were acceptable etc. but I stopped taking the paper, I now source my news and culture online, but from no one particular place. I like to visit sites which deal in their own area of expertise, rather than sites which try to cover everything under the sun, newspapers always suffered by pretending to know, the information was quite often a little distorted. The internet is starting to evolve into something quite amazing there are plenty of good sites already in place (such as this), so I am not concerned if an old institution or publication succeeds in making the transition or not, what is good will survive. Loving this site, the responses on ‘my first website’ post were fantastic, how many responses do you get in the medium of print. Print as a tactile medium seems to have been given more thought by designers recently.
Permalink for this comment Javier Centeno says: December 22, 2008

@ Chris:

That’s where collaboration comes into play. While it’s true that many great designers who are not up-to-date with the web, might feel frustrated with all of these changes, there’s also an opportunity to see more collaboration between designers and developers.

I think is always exciting to design for a “new” medium. Those print designers who haven’t learned about the web, haven’t done it because they haven’t felt the need for it. As we move to higher demands for good design in the web, we will start seeing more traditional print designers move to the web. And because we are now seeing new exciting approachs to web design (like Jason’s site), it will be more appealing for designers to begin “experimenting” with the web. They will just need to look for guidance from a good developer.

Print designers will need to learn about the web and adapt to it but also developers will need to adapt to new designs. That’s what I think is exciting about this. We’re not only adapting print designs to web, we’re also adapting the web to new designs. Those web designers who continue to design traditional web layouts will be left behind just like those print designers who don’t adapt to the web.
Permalink for this comment Brendan Cullen says: December 22, 2008

I just ran across this article that claims the LA Times online revenue now exceeds it’s costs. If this is true, and they can dump their print expenses and re-invest that money into good content/design/online marketing; this is the turning point.
Permalink for this comment Chris Hester says: December 22, 2008

Paulo Pereira wrote in comment 9 :

I think it’s clear that the print won’t die. Ever. A computer isn’t a proper way to read books. And the magazines where design really matters will keep printing.

There is another angle. The computer becomes portable, the newspaper becomes a roll-up flat screen. Think of the scene in Minority Report where a newspaper changes its headline in real time to show Tom Cruise. Also think of the Kindle, how that might replace printed books.

So which way do you think is the best for a career move? Into print or web? Should print be avoided altogether?
Permalink for this comment Anonymous says: December 22, 2008

I’m in the midst of an environment where .com is dictated by print execs who don’t get it. Anyone know of job board dedicated to .com business jobs? I’ve got to get out before the ship sinks.
Permalink for this comment Sal Moriarty says: December 23, 2008

To claim that newspapers and magazines need to learn to innovate and invest time into design shows that it is easy to be on the outside looking in. Sure, The New York Times, LA Times, and many other newspapers could put together a well-designed web site like the this site, but what you don’t realize is that these sites publish on a deadline basis. They don’t have the convenience of publishing whenever they want and can’t put the time into making a custom site for every article or story.

I respect you, Jason, but you can’t compare newspapers and magazines to the Googles of the world because Google wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing without the newspapers and magazines. To make an overriding statement like these places aren’t investing into innovation is to show that you haven’t really looked into or cared to look into what other newspapers are doing. (This whole “comment preview” thing isn’t innovative. It’s slow and clunky.) The Lawrence World Journal was more invested into online long before the NY Times realized they had a web site.

To say print is dead is to say journalism is dead.

To answer Chris Hester’s question: If you think the Minority Report scenario comes true, you need to be studying principles of print design. If you noticed, it still looked like a newspaper. Web designers need to learn print and vice versa for print designers.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 23, 2008

@ Sal Moriarty

Thanks for the comments, Sal, you raise some interesting points.

To claim that newspapers and magazines need to learn to innovate and invest time into design shows that it is easy to be on the outside looking in. Sure, The New York Times, LA Times, and many other newspapers could put together a well-designed web site like the this site, but what you don’t realize is that these sites publish on a deadline basis. They don’t have the convenience of publishing whenever they want and can’t put the time into making a custom site for every article or story.

I absolutely do realize that there are deadlines to contend with. As I’ve said many times before, it’s not a matter of custom designs for every article or of mini-features like comment previews, it’s a matter of acknowledging that the web is a distinct medium.

Print magazines without editorial design, or with content just carelessly dropped on a page, would be a mess and likely wouldn’t last very long. This mentality wouldn’t fly in the print publications, and it won’t fly online. If they are publishing in a specific medium, they need to understand the strengths of that medium in order to succeed.

Deadlines are just one factor in finding better ways to connect with audiences. What I’m saying is that the vast majority of these publications don’t treat their websites as anything but a repository. These problems are not going to be solved with the same solutions for content or design or features that we have now. Organizations will have to approach this as a new beast and find new ways to connect with their readers. That might mean rethinking production flows and capabilities, or adapting to do some things more quickly on a deadline by embracing some new technology or method.

I respect you, Jason, but you can’t compare newspapers and magazines to the Googles of the world because Google wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing without the newspapers and magazines.

Come on, that’s just silly. It doesn’t matter who wouldn’t be around without who! These are the conversations that have kept such a wedge between print and web people. This is not a time for standoffs and pissing matches about what medium is better or what idea was around first. These things can and will be compared because they are occupying the same space.

To make an overriding statement like these places aren’t investing into innovation is to show that you haven’t really looked into or cared to look into what other newspapers are doing.

I come from the print world, and I spend a tremendous amount of time online reading and designing and keeping up with things like this. Chances are exceedingly good that I will hear of innovations in this space. I have looked into this topic. It’s practically all I look into.

If I am wrong, show me the success story. Show me where good content is being paired with good design to the delight of readers, all sustained on a sound revenue stream.

So I will say it again, publications are not investing enough in making their websites great.

I do care, which is why I want to write things like this to persuade other people to care. I want publications to keep producing great stories and great design that make me want to read them. Don’t presume I’m just trying to get a rise out of you by writing this article, I’m trying to help.

To say print is dead is to say journalism is dead.

I completely agree. One of the biggest problems facing the industry isn’t design, but the infrastructure of journalism. If someone isn’t being paid to create stories, there will be little value in journalism. I’m not saying the printed word is dead, that would be disastrous, I’m saying it’s becoming more difficult to sustain a revenue model based on a print publication. Organizations need to start figuring this out before it’s too late.
Permalink for this comment Brad says: December 26, 2008

@Sal

but what you don’t realize is that these sites publish on a deadline basis.

The deadline is tied to the process not the other way around. All a print deadline really means is that past an arbitrary point in time the cost of printing for the next day’s paper will rise in comparison to the median cost for printing on the average day. How is that relevant to online publishing?

When my old paper shared its printing resources with its sister paper, our deadline was suddenly shortened by three hours. Does that mean that news stories no longer broke after 7pm? Of course not; we just didn’t make them our business until the next news cycle, because our presses were being occupied by a different newspaper at the time.

The newspaper business model has been based on value-added paper for so long that they have a hard time expressing an opinion outside of that context. It’s always either a redesign, or a thinner broadsheet. Nobody’s coming up with the no-sheet ideas.
Permalink for this comment Tom Barnett says: December 29, 2008

I (being a student) do volunteer work for a UK-based (and, incidentally, multi-award winning) Student Newspaper as their head of online media and it does seem as though the “next generation” of journalists are grasping the idea that online media IS the way forward; not to say that print is dead, but the two can co-exist happily. The volunteer journalists write the pieces, the editors make the pages look pretty and then myself and a small team work on transferring the pages over to an online medium – unfortunately we just don’t have the time to spend hours on each article.

However, money IS being invested in the website which otherwise would normally have been spent on the newspaper, and from talking to the editors of this paper and other student media publications (and it’s important to remember these are people who are nevertheless paid yearly salaries and will be the future brass at more major publications) they are realising the sheer importance of the internet, design and – crucially – interactivity with the audience (an internet article can be a forum for debate in ways that a newspaper article just can’t – this very article for instance) to the future survival of newspapers.

What I am trying to say is that in the UK at least, at lower levels this vision is becoming a reality yet it can’t really come soon enough.
Permalink for this comment AP says: December 29, 2008

Beautiful site! I was sent here via your article at 24ways.com on modular layouts, which was illuminating to say the least.

I like your post here and am pretty much am in agreement. I did want to mention that you have a dogleg in your layout here, making it hard to tell if one should start reading below the image or at the top right column. Or is the top right column a sidebard? It was confusing to me.

This is a common problem in newspaper design as well, so it’s amusing to me that your post on newspapers had this going on.

Your site design is nice because it does evoke that newspapery asthetic — apparently the pitfalls of newspaper design are coming along for the ride!

If it is a sidebar — which I believe it is, now that I’ve read it — some shading or a rule would help [or “border” in webspeak].

Keep up the great work.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 29, 2008

@ AP :

I did want to mention that you have a dogleg in your layout here, making it hard to tell if one should start reading below the image or at the top right column. Or is the top right column a sidebard? It was confusing to me.

I see what you mean, but I think the large lead-in text does the job of getting your eye to the right spot. I do understand about the potential sidebar issue, and I hadn’t really considered it before. Sometimes I have blinders on when I’m laying these articles out because I rarely, if ever, use sidebars (usually because my articles tend to be brief). But I will definitely keep that in mind for future stuff. Thanks for the kind words and for the observations.
Permalink for this comment AP says: December 29, 2008

Sal Moriarty said:

To say print is dead is to say journalism is dead.

Jason Santa Maria said:

I completely agree.

I have to disagree, actually. Many of today’s journalists are considering the free agent model the wave of the future, and whether they publish their stories online or in print is makes no difference.

It is a more tenuous way to make a living, however — not much stability. However, I don’t know that I would have ever considered journalism to be a relatively stable way to make a living.

Great food for thought here. And it’s something I am following closely, being a journalism school grad myself and having many friends in the industry.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: December 29, 2008

@ AP :

I have to disagree, actually. Many of today’s journalists are considering the free agent model the wave of the future, and whether they publish their stories online or in print is makes no difference.

Sorry, I took Sal’s point to mean “the printed word” not just print publications, as in: people getting paid to produce articles. I should have been more specific, as I agree with your points. I think that if people aren’t being paid, either by employ or free agent, the number of quality sources for news will suffer considerably.
Permalink for this comment Steve Morin says: December 30, 2008

I think this is a great example of the hurdles that printed publications need to learn and overcome. They are used to putting out a product that sits and can be read at a subscriber leisure. While that can be done online, the biggest difference is the interactivity that is being sought out by online users. In this day of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. Readers/Subscribers want to INTERACT. They want to be part of the story with their comments, not just a reader.

Some of the print giants have realized that and have made the transitions, it is the little local newspapers that might suffer as locals turn to blogging about what is happening in their own small towns.

And of course, many folks in these businesses are still “old boys” who have a hard time checking emails.
Permalink for this comment Tom Barnett says: December 30, 2008

In this day of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. Readers/Subscribers want to INTERACT. They want to be part of the story with their comments, not just a reader.

This is why bbc.co.uk (okay, broadcast journalism – but journalism nonetheless) has been projected to the forefront of online “print” journalism. More people get their news from bbc.co.uk than they do their newspapers (an unqualified statement I admit, but surely not far from the truth) – most of the time myself included. The BBC allows room in their articles for comments by users, allows a vibrant forum for debate and ultimately is years ahead of the rest – admittedly with a budget one suspects far greater than the rest, but I digress.

Indeed I recall that they were the first major website in the UK to take advantage of mobile phone photos and footage during major news stories (7/7 et al).
Permalink for this comment Chris Wallace says: January 03, 2009

JPG magazine just called it quits. I guess this is happening sooner rather than later. What will survive the recession, other than web magazines and blogs?
Permalink for this comment Radoslav Kostadinov says: January 03, 2009

I still think that print as a media has its own unique applications. It’s more real, gives a feeling of possession and is great for real life advertising. If we all didn’t commented on articles, newspapers and books, the whole web wouldn’t be the same. Books give us an additional knowledge, which sometimes isn’t available online. They are widely used in schools, universities etc. I hope, that we don’t communicate only online in the future, because blogs and social networks will make us only asocial, losing our personal identities.
Permalink for this comment John Pasmore says: January 03, 2009

spent 15 years in print — even if publishers did “get” web, the mediums are different. The readers expectations and interaction are different — can google what you dont know, can share, can bookmark — i believe it’s simply an evolution and print, while beautiful when done well is somewhat like calligraphy, it’s a craft, it can be elegant, but it’s inefficient. Cutting down trees to spread ink on the result and putting the finished products on newsstands to sell 30% of them is not a good model. There’s a place for print, at least for us, don’t know if our kids will share the affection.
Permalink for this comment Antti says: January 03, 2009

All offtopic: I actually had same issue than AP had with that right column. I started reading it first. Maybe it is my screen resolution, but the larger headline went too near to the bottom of the page, so I never realised to even look at there.

Very nice site you have here.
Permalink for this comment Jän says: January 03, 2009

I wouldn’t necessarily confuse or generalize “print” with “news.” News is news because it is new and rapid delivery will always drive the delivery of news. I don’t think we can lump all print into what we are seeing happen in the news and periodical industry.

And let’s face it Jason, your still recommending 31 printed books on your website to read.
Permalink for this comment Jason Santa Maria says: January 03, 2009

@ Jän :

And let’s face it Jason, your still recommending 31 printed books on your website to read.

As I said in the article and in my comments above, I’m referring to the printed word, and more specifically, printed newspapers. I never said that all printed matter, and certainly not books, are dead.
Permalink for this comment Stephen says: January 07, 2009

Personally I find that the BBC News and Sport sites are very well made.

Coming from an news institution that does not have any traditional print media perhaps the transition is easier.

Compared with the NYTImes (I only recently checked it out) it is much more accessible.

Check it out and see what you think.
Permalink for this comment Dave Rutter says: January 12, 2009

Another on topic article regarding the financial position of The New York Times: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901/new-york-times
Permalink for this comment John Niedermeyer says: January 14, 2009

FWIW, NY Mag has a great piece in the week’s issue:

The New Journalism: Goosing the Gray Lady »

It looks into some of the innovative organizational, technical and editorial stuff going on at NYTimes.com.
Permalink for this comment Dave Rutter says: January 15, 2009

Thanks for posting that link John – a very interesting read. It’s great to see some of the news sites innovating.