[系列之一]报业的影响力模型

我正在读Philip Meyer的“The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age”; 将会在相关的题目上写一系列短文。这一篇暂且谈一下书中的“影响力模型”(the infulence model)。

作者在介绍这个模型之前讲了一个小故事:Knight Ridder报业集团在1986年获得了七个普利策奖。消息传出后,集团的股票立刻下跌。业内解释说,他们得的普利策奖太多了;花在这些得奖项目上的钱本来应该进入盈利的。
集团内的人不是这样看的。“我们不是在经营新闻,甚至不是在经营信息。我们经营的是影响力”,作者引述了Hal Jurgensmeyer的观点。在这个模型中,报纸生产两种影响力:社会影响力和商业影响力。社会影响力是不出售的;而商业影响力,对读者消费行为的影响,是用来出售的。后者就是广告,报纸五分之四的收入来源。

作者接下来论证社会影响力是商业影响力的基础;而前者的基础是优秀的新闻素质。社会影响力的大前提是:报纸是社区信息交流的主要渠道。正是这个大前提在过去的几十年里慢慢消蚀着;报纸的前途变得难以预测。
作者调用了大量数据来支持他的论述。这个“影响力模型”,在我的直觉上,对美国的报业是一个比较贴切的描述。许多资深报纸的确恪守他们的社会价值观。不过近些年来,许多报纸的股权转化甚大,对经营上造成了相应的影响。我将在后面的文章中讨论这一点。这里想借这个模型来对照一下中国大陆的报刊媒体。

大陆报业的主要收入也是广告(靠政府资助的报纸基本边缘化了)。美国的广告业经过多年的发展,对广告的效果有深入的研究,要求很苛刻。大陆可能还没有进入到这个阶段。不过广告市场的细化是个大趋势。Google(new technology!)在这上面做得就很成功。广告收入当然是依赖报纸的发行量的。作广告的商家很快就会学会考察报纸的“真实”发行量、阅读率、读者人群分布的。Meyer特别强调了报纸的公信力对广告收入的影响。公信力一词对大陆报业可能有些勉为其难了。因为从行政调控的时期起,他们的公信力就是可以出售的。是的,大陆报业的社会影响力如今仍然与行政干预暗通款曲。推波助澜是透支了的影响力。少数新闻界人士会努力传递良知,艰险地与政治擦边。倒是专业化的报刊可以积累下一些影响力。大众媒体的新闻素养正面临巨大危机。

没有真正的社会影响力,发行量是一个比较飘渺的概念。而社会影响力不是可以炒作出来的。西方资深报纸的影响力是建立在明确的价值观之上的:维护信息自由开放地流通是民主社会的基石——媒体承担这个责任和荣耀。大陆的报业没有这种根基。它的社会价值观在很长一段时间会是模糊的,不仅是政治的原因,而且是社会文化的原因。更何况气势汹汹的数字媒体正在争夺有限的大众注意力。


Comments by Tim Porter

Meyer begins by reprising much his earlier work on the theory that newspapers are "in the influence business," not the news or information business. He relies on a business argument called the Influence Model (conceived by former Knight Ridder executive Hans Hal Jurgensmeyer) that posits: Quality journalism increases social influence and credibility, which in turn drive circulation and profitability.

The 40-year calving of mass media into smaller and smaller chunks - a process accelerated exponentially by the growth of the Internet - has created a wealth of information that, quoting the Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon:

"... creates a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."

In less wonkish terms, consumers, inundated by wave upon wave of emerging media, are retreating from the mass and seeking refuge in niches that meet a basic need to know about the surrounding world but also satisfy a more specific desire for information about their particular interests.

How has the newspaper industry responded to these challenges and the declining market penetration that have resulted from them?

Badly, says Meyer.

"The main response of the newspaper industry to the threat of substitute technology (ed note: The inevitable disruptive force that attacks every industry) has been to reduce costs and raise prices." Further driven by increasing consolidation and short-term financial pressures, newspapers have done everything to fortify the bottom line but the one thing that may actually keep their influence strong: "Pay the costs of the radical experimentation needed to learn what new media forms will be viable." In other words, the industry has refused to take a short-term hit on its historical double-digit margins in order to invest in a chance for long-term survival.

The newspaper industry's drive for profit at the expense of good journalism - profits rose 207 percent between 1991 and 2000 while newsroom budgets crept upward only 3 percent in the same period - feeds a cycle that "will in time erode public trust, weaken societal influence, and eventually destabilize circulation and advertising. So why would anyone want to cut quality?"

Good question. One answer, says Meyer, is that there are "many bad newspapers" that make money. Another, he suggests, is that some news companies are, in the words of Harvard professor Michael Porter, "harvesting market position." Meyer explains this tactic in his Columbia Journalism Review essay:

"Managers do it by raising prices and reducing quality so they can shell out the money and run. I know of no newspaper companies that are doing this consciously, but the behavior of most points in this direction: smaller news hole, lighter staffing, and reduced community service, leading, of course, to fading readership, declining circulation, and lost advertising. Plot it on a graph, and it looks like a death spiral."

Meyer is not all gloom. He finds a few photons of sunshine in the connection between community journalism and credibility. "Smallness in size contributes to credibility, which in turn aids" penetration, he writes, and from this comes advice for editors of larger newspapers:

"They can at least try to imagine way to manage a larger newspaper that would yield some of the effects of a smaller community. Zoning is one obvious way. Encouraging citizen participation in the affairs of the larger community, a goal of the civic journalism movement, is another."

There are other ways, of course, some of which I tossed out in raw format in Explode the Newsroom: Six Ways to Rebuild the System, and all require a fundamental re-examination of the way newspapers do journalism. Traditional antidotes like zoning may produce short-term readership and advertising successes, but they fail to address the inherent structural and cultural issues of newspaper newsrooms that inhibit the bold thinking necessary to transform newspapers from an institutional on the verge of complete disruption into one willing risk substantial investment in its own relevance.

Tags: Journalism, Newspapers, Media
Posted by Tim Porter at February 5, 2005 11:23 AM
http://www.timporter.com/firstdraft/archives/000413.html