A Chicago Tribune piece that talks about USA Today's upcoming 25th anniversary makes a point all communicators should think about -- particularly in today's challenging environment.
Recall, when it first came out, USA Today was derided as "McPaper" for putting out very short stories that couldn't possibly be substantive...
Here's the beef:
"USA Today was successful because it respected what people cared about," said Ken Paulson, who rejoined USA Today as editor in 2004 after being present at the 1982 launch, loaned for a few months to the nascent national publication by his Gannett paper in New Jersey. "There was a lot of criticism of USA Today for giving people what they wanted instead of what they needed, but is there a news organization today that isn't trying very hard to deliver what people want?"
Imagine. The paper was dinged for "giving people what they wanted instead of what they needed."
Flip ahead to 2007 and what do we see? Traditional media are being crushed precisely for failing to give people what they really want. They're a mile wide and an inch deep.
If you're interested in tech, for example, you could read the handful of stories that national newspapers cover every week on technology, often following what appears first in the online world. Or, you could subscribe to the many, many blogs and podcasts that cover every facet of the industry in great detail -- and view them all in the comfort of your favorite feedreader, in real time.
Seems like a no-brainer.
The lesson? USA Today caught on a quarter-century ago to what big media are finding out only today: You must give people what they want, not what you want them to want.
Kinda simple, isn't it?
Technorati Tags: usa today, media, web 2.0, newspaper, journalism
USA Today keeps it short and sweet, just the way I like it
USA Today always seemed to do well with respecting people's time. Not only did they give the readers what they wanted, they did so succinctly. There are consistently two papers in the kitchen at my office every day: The New York Times and USA Today. I spend less than 5 minutes each day looking at them. First, I browse the headlines of the Times. If something catches my eye, I'll read the first paragraph or two. Then I read a few full articles in USA Today. I'm not the type to want exhaustive information on every news story. Just give me the basics. If I want more, I'll go find it.
Agreed. I also like what
Agreed. I also like what both of those papers -- NYT and USA Today -- have done online.
Isn't USA Today a prime example of "inch deep"?
Seems the USA Today formula is short stories (as in not very deep). Even the longer stories are relatively short vs. NYT for example. So perhaps USA Today is not the prime counterexample to "...a mile wide and an inch deep."
Also seems the struggles of mainstream media (TV at least) may have as much if not more to do with delivering too much of what people "want" vs. what they need, as evidenced by the endless coverage of celebrity brushes with the law and such (as just one example)...hardly a "need."
I dunno... I can't imagine
I dunno... I can't imagine that with all the choices available today that I'd choose to watch a news program full of stories that someone decided that I "need" to see.
The problem, I think, is that TV programming still wants to appeal to everybody -- the broadest possible audience -- and that is impossible. They'll go elsewhere. And they have.
Want vs. need? Some of us want to fulfill our needs, too.
Perhaps the trick is not to provide what people think they "want" at the expense of what they "need." It need not be a "versus," an "either/or" equation. Rather, news should provide what's important, the information about events and activities that influence, perhaps fundamentally, the lives of citizens and the nature of towns, states, countries, the globe. Other, non-news, sources can focus on wants.
Suppose people "want" to hear about the latest scandalous tidbits related to Britney Spears. And they don't particularly "want" to hear about taxes (even though it may be info of pending changes that will prompt their taxes to double or triple if citizens don't protest much). I suggest news (as opposed to entertainment, or marketing) entities and vehicles weigh more than the degree of interest or "want" when deciding what to report. News should help each of us be a responsible citizen, parent, voter, etc., not merely fill our time with interesting or entertaining stuff, stuff we "want" but that ultimately serves little value beyond entertainment, amusement, etc. If one wants to see things such as someone's pet on miniature water skis, or read about the latest celebrity soap opera, for example, then why not turn to a program or publication that does not call itself "news" rather than expect or demand such things from "news" sources?
I think this is a nice
I think this is a nice aspiration. And it has been the approach of traditional news as far back as I've been involved in the industry.
My point is simply that as a business model -- it has failed.
If you don't give people what they want, they won't watch or read. And they certainly won't pay for your product. Sad, perhaps. But true.