I'm picking up on the discussion to which Jeff Jarvis, Lisa Williams, Steve Anderson and others have contributed. It has morphed from "Is it Better to Build, Not Buy a Metro News Organization" and I have retitled it.

I agree with Jeff that advertising is one of the legs on which the future of news depends. For nine years my wife and I published two free-circulation weeklies in Berkshire County. We struggled -- and I think largely succeeded -- to do quality journalism without benefit of circulation revenue. It was tough. On the other hand, no single advertiser represented more than 3% of our revenues. And so there was really no single person or entity who had the ability to exert pressure on us, by threat of withdrawing advertising, over any single story. In a general sense we were dependent on the retail and business community and so our coverage had to be in the broadest sense supportive of free enterprise. But within that range there was lots of room for feisty, independent reporting -- and we did it. I think the great strength of America's newspapers in the late 20th century was that they had diversified revenues from both advertising and circulation. Where they got into trouble was relying too heavily on advertising and not enough on circulation. No less than Al Neuharth, the former CEO of Gannett and founder of USA Today, warned about this years ago in urging papers to raise the cover price of their products.

I think Lisa's point about ownership and incentives is also important. Some of the most enduring organizations in our culture are not-for-profits. She mentions some. Another example -- parent-teacher organizations. Leadership changes and morphs as your children grow. But in many communities these informal, "chaordic" (chaos-order) groups endure.

And so I'm drawn to notion that we want to find an OWNERSHIP model which, as Steve points out, isn't dependent on the "exit strategy" payoff for the owner, but rather upon a sustained relationship with members/owners/users that creates ongoing value -- and financial surplus whether from advertising, circulation, membership, donations, or service income -- and ideally all five. It should be chartered with a mission that has to do with fostering participatory democracy and community. The intent to make a surplus of revenue over expenses is merely a method to achieve the objective.

As for REVENUE models, noted three sentences above, the more "legs" on this stool the better, and the more diversified the better.

For the last few years, I've wondered if the "co-op" model of organization might make sense for news organizations of the future. Many of us probably live in communities which support food co-operatives. In our small town, there's one that is running well enough now that it is building annual surpluses, and it is looking at other businesses to consider entering which might nuture and sustain and community just as does nutritional, locally grown food. Many parts of the nation have thriving credit unions, which are essentially member-owned banks. There are still active agriculture co-ops in the Midwest. Even TrueValue Hardware is a co-op. So are The Associated Press and, as to governance, Visa International Service Corp. I'd like to see exploration of this model for the future of news.

In my previous message I spoke in support of community ownership models,
but I do have reservations about them. One thing that makes me,
personally, wary of some of the community participation/board member
models is stuff like this:

http://www.greensboro101.com/feature/display/16617/index.php

Roch Smith, who runs Greensboro101.com, makes what I think is the right
decision to publish a report detailing corruption and mismanagement in
the police department -- a report paid for by public tax dollars -- and
four of his "advisory board" members immediately resign. Is the point
of a board so that they can resign in protest the minute things get a
little hot?

Community organization may provide better chances for survival once the
founder exits or dies, since unlike a for-profit business there may not
be as much pressure to find (or fail to find) a new buyer. But
community sites (and newspapers) depend so much on the verve of an
individual editorial voice. We've all seen the lousy effects of
blandification of local papers stemming from chain ownership and the
management by committee disasters of nonprofits. At H2otown I have the
luxury and the freedom to maneuver to keep the site interesting, without
wasting precious time and resources worrying about whether it's going to
be okay with a boss or a board -- which is fitting since I'm doing the
work.

And work is got to be where the authority comes from: we might like to
think that community worthies of one sort or another will make good
board members, but the sad fact is they may not. The best people to
assume more responsibility at a community news organization are the
people who come out of the woodwork and start writing for it because
they enjoy doing it -- they have the right motivations. It's very
infrequent that they're people who are well known in town. The future
belongs to the Nobodies.

Lisa W.

Bill Densmore wrote:
> I'm picking up on the discussion to which Jeff Jarvis, Lisa Williams, Steve Anderson and others have contributed. It has morphed from "Is it Better to Build, Not Buy a Metro News Organization" and I have retitled it.
>
> I agree with Jeff that advertising is one of the legs on which the future of news depends. For nine years my wife and I published two free-circulation weeklies in Berkshire County. We struggled -- and I think largely succeeded -- to do quality journalism without benefit of circulation revenue. It was tough. On the other hand, no single advertiser represented more than 3% of our revenues. And so there was really no single person or entity who had the ability to exert pressure on us, by threat of withdrawing advertising, over any single story. In a general sense we were dependent on the retail and business community and so our coverage had to be in the broadest sense supportive of free enterprise. But within that range there was lots of room for feisty, independent reporting -- and we did it. I think the great strength of America's newspapers in the late 20th century was that they had diversified revenues from both advertising and circulation. Where they got into trouble was relying too heavily on advertising and not enough on circulation. No less than Al Neuharth, (http://www.newshare.com/news/FCC_family_newspapers.html) the former CEO of Gannett and founder of USA Today, warned about this years ago in urging papers to raise the cover price of their products.
>
> I think Lisa's point about ownership and incentives is also important. Some of the most enduring organizations in our culture are not-for-profits. She mentions some. Another example -- parent-teacher organizations. Leadership changes and morphs as your children grow. But in many communities these informal, "chaordic" (chaos-order) groups endure.
>
> And so I'm drawn to notion that we want to find an OWNERSHIP model which, as Steve points out, isn't dependent on the "exit strategy" payoff for the owner, but rather upon a sustained relationship with members/owners/users that creates ongoing value -- and financial surplus whether from advertising, circulation, membership, donations, or service income -- and ideally all five. It should be chartered with a mission that has to do with fostering participatory democracy and community. The intent to make a surplus of revenue over expenses is merely a method to achieve the objective.
>
> As for REVENUE models, noted three sentences above, the more "legs" on this stool the better, and the more diversified the better.
>
> For the last few years, I've wondered if the "co-op" model of organization might make sense for news organizations of the future. Many of us probably live in communities which support food co-operatives. In our small town, there's one that is running well enough now that it is building annual surpluses, and it is looking at other businesses to consider entering which might nuture and sustain and community just as does nutritional, locally grown food. Many parts of the nation have thriving credit unions, which are essentially member-owned banks. There are still active agriculture co-ops in the Midwest. Even TrueValue Hardware (http://www.truserv.com/home/) is a co-op. So are The Associated Press and, as to governance, Visa International Service Corp. (http://www.globalhome.com/news/chaordic/bookreview.html) I'd like to see exploration of this model for the future of news.
>

I don't see many advantages to going non-profit right now. The big
advantage is that I *might* be able to get some grants to give
Coastsider the capital to get to break-even. But even the prospect of
writing grants instead of journalism makes me weary. The whole process
seems design to extract maximum mediocrity from applicants.

Also, I've seen non-profit boards in action and I want nothing to do
with the process. Our local public-access station is mired in
timidity and pleasing its funders to a degree that they've forgotten
they're chartered to serve the citizens and not their funders.

My other problem is that Coastside politics is highly polarized. That
makes it a challenge to build a board. I'm a moderate, but not neutral
by any means. I don't want Coastsider to be a creature of one side or
the other, or mindlessly "objective", but it's hard to find enough
moderates who care enough to nurture the project.

I am considering is convening an advisory board of local journalists
(who don't practice locally) who have taken an interest in Coastsider.
It might help me get some clarity on this and some other things.

But Lisa put her finger on the contradictions: It's the individual
voice that makes these sites sing, but individual ownership is a very
fragile structure for an institution and non-profits and co-ops are
not ideal structures for bringing out individual voices.

bp

--
Barry Parr

http://coastsider.com

650.523.4929 phone
815.572.0794 fax
-----------------------------------------

Lisa (and list):

Yup, you're right about a potential downside of "community" ownership -- where does the buck stop when there is a controversial investigative project that is going to ruffle some powerful feathers. In that sense, NGO/community/foundation ownership could be ***worse*** for journalism than corporate ownership if it enforces a "don't rock the boat" mentality. If I were to rank ownership options here's how I'd do it:

1) Private/individual/family ownership where the owner
is in it in large measure for the thrill of journalism.

2) Foundation/non-profit ownership where there is leadership
in some way empowered to act independently.

3) Co-op ownership (untested but worth a try)

4) Multi-market ownership group, privately held

6) Public ownership (TV/radio owned by universities)

5) Public-stock owner

What other options are there?

-- bill

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Lisa Williams wrote:

> In my previous message I spoke in support of community ownership models, but
> I do have reservations about them. One thing that makes me, personally, wary
> of some of the community participation/board member models is stuff like
> this:
>
> http://www.greensboro101.com/feature/display/16617/index.php
>
> Roch Smith, who runs Greensboro101.com, makes what I think is the right
> decision to publish a report detailing corruption and mismanagement in the
> police department -- a report paid for by public tax dollars -- and four of
> his "advisory board" members immediately resign. Is the point of a board so
> that they can resign in protest the minute things get a little hot?
> Community organization may provide better chances for survival once the
> founder exits or dies, since unlike a for-profit business there may not be as
> much pressure to find (or fail to find) a new buyer. But community sites
> (and newspapers) depend so much on the verve of an individual editorial
> voice. We've all seen the lousy effects of blandification of local papers
> stemming from chain ownership and the management by committee disasters of
> nonprofits. At H2otown I have the luxury and the freedom to maneuver to keep
> the site interesting, without wasting precious time and resources worrying
> about whether it's going to be okay with a boss or a board -- which is
> fitting since I'm doing the work.
>
> And work is got to be where the authority comes from: we might like to think
> that community worthies of one sort or another will make good board members,
> but the sad fact is they may not. The best people to assume more
> responsibility at a community news organization are the people who come out
> of the woodwork and start writing for it because they enjoy doing it -- they
> have the right motivations. It's very infrequent that they're people who
> are well known in town. The future belongs to the Nobodies.
>
> Lisa W.
>
>
>
> Bill Densmore wrote:
>> I'm picking up on the discussion to which Jeff Jarvis, Lisa Williams, Steve
>> Anderson and others have contributed. It has morphed from "Is it Better to
>> Build, Not Buy a Metro News Organization" and I have retitled it.
>> I agree with Jeff that advertising is one of the legs on which the future
>> of news depends. For nine years my wife and I published two
>> free-circulation weeklies in Berkshire County. We struggled -- and I think
>> largely succeeded -- to do quality journalism without benefit of
>> circulation revenue. It was tough. On the other hand, no single advertiser
>> represented more than 3% of our revenues. And so there was really no single
>> person or entity who had the ability to exert pressure on us, by threat of
>> withdrawing advertising, over any single story. In a general sense we were
>> dependent on the retail and business community and so our coverage had to
>> be in the broadest sense supportive of free enterprise. But within that
>> range there was lots of room for feisty, independent reporting -- and we
>> did it. I think the great strength of America's newspapers in the late 20th
>> century was that they had diversified revenues from both advertising and
>> circulation. Where they got into trouble was relying too heavily on
>> advertising and not enough on circulation. No less than Al Neuharth,
>> (http://www.newshare.com/news/FCC_family_newspapers.html) the former CEO of
>> Gannett and founder of USA Today, warned about this years ago in urging
>> papers to raise the cover price of their products.
>> I think Lisa's point about ownership and incentives is also important. Some
>> of the most enduring organizations in our culture are not-for-profits. She
>> mentions some. Another example -- parent-teacher organizations. Leadership
>> changes and morphs as your children grow. But in many communities these
>> informal, "chaordic" (chaos-order) groups endure.
>> And so I'm drawn to notion that we want to find an OWNERSHIP model which,
>> as Steve points out, isn't dependent on the "exit strategy" payoff for the
>> owner, but rather upon a sustained relationship with members/owners/users
>> that creates ongoing value -- and financial surplus whether from
>> advertising, circulation, membership, donations, or service income -- and
>> ideally all five. It should be chartered with a mission that has to do with
>> fostering participatory democracy and community. The intent to make a
>> surplus of revenue over expenses is merely a method to achieve the
>> objective.
>>
>> As for REVENUE models, noted three sentences above, the more "legs" on this
>> stool the better, and the more diversified the better.
>> For the last few years, I've wondered if the "co-op" model of organization
>> might make sense for news organizations of the future. Many of us probably
>> live in communities which support food co-operatives. In our small town,
>> there's one that is running well enough now that it is building annual
>> surpluses, and it is looking at other businesses to consider entering which
>> might nuture and sustain and community just as does nutritional, locally
>> grown food. Many parts of the nation have thriving credit unions, which are
>> essentially member-owned banks. There are still active agriculture co-ops
>> in the Midwest. Even TrueValue Hardware (http://www.truserv.com/home/) is a
>> co-op. So are The Associated Press and, as to governance, Visa
>> International Service Corp.
>> (http://www.globalhome.com/news/chaordic/bookreview.html) I'd like to see
>> exploration of this model for the future of news.
>>

>>Densmore writes " NGO/community/foundation ownership could be ***worse***
for journalism than corporate ownership if it enforces a "don't rock the
boat" mentality." With the implication that corporate ownership is, ipso
facto, bad.

Well, just a note of protest here that corporate ownership does not, by
definition, create bad journalism. Only bad management results in bad
"product", whether it's journalism or pretzels. Bad management can occur at
privately owned media, publicly-owned media, non-profit-owned media,
co-op-owned media, or anything else you can dream up, not just if it
enforces a "don't rock the boat" mentality, but for many other reasons.

A look at the Pulitzer prize winners each year will show you fabulous
journalism that for the most part is produced at "big bad" corporate-owned
media. Certainly, those same media produce some of the worst journalism, as
well, but perhaps that's because they actually **don't** have a "don't rock
the boat" mentality, but take some risks and sometimes miss.

Martin writes:

"Well, just a note of protest here that corporate ownership does not, by
definition, create bad journalism. Only bad management results in bad

"product", whether it's journalism or pretzels. Bad management can occur at
privately owned media, publicly-owned media, non-profit-owned media,
co-op-owned media, or anything else you can dream up, not just if it
enforces a "don't rock the boat" mentality, but for many other reasons."

---- Absolutely true. There are no shortcuts, and no substitutes for doing the difficult things well.

--
Lisa Williams

Google Talk: lisatmh

Places I blog:
Lisa Williams' Blog:
http://www.cadence90.com/wp/

H2otown, a citizen journalism site for Watertown
http://h2otown.info

OPML Fan, a blog tracking developments in OPML and the OPML Community
http://blogs.opml.org/thisislisa/

I'm going to have to disagree with Martin. There are good journalists
working for the corporate media and there are some decent corporate
media organizations.

-but as a media system it structures and commercializes news so that
it resides in a rather narrow spectrum. It's about the system not the
people or specific entities. The study I pointed out in an earlier
email, and many others make the case. I can't go into all the reasons
why corporate media doesn't work, but generally it has to do with the
conflict of interests involved that act as filters - and also their
incestuous relationships with ruling power structures. For more I
would recommend the book "Manufacturing Consent", or McChesneys' "The
Problem of The Media"

The corporate media do not adequately inform the public, to me this is fact.

Bad management can happen at public interest media as well, but they
do not have as many structural conflicts of interests or filters - and
they generally act in public interest which is what media should do.

Media of any ownership type can create bad journalism, the question is
which type of ownership is less likely to do so and which is more
likely to do so. Corporate media is the most likely to produce profit
centered bad journalism.

Bob's example looks pretty interesting, and sounds like it works in that case.

I disagree with those who claim that non-profit media creates a "don't
rock the boat mentality" -for profit media is more likely to do so in
my opinion. I would look to TruthOut.org, The NewStandard, Alternet,
and so many others who do rock the boat, and are non-profit.

And to Bob's point non-profit media can operate with a similar
structure as for-profit media, you do not need to operate it as a
committee. All you have to do is have a public Interest mandate, and
have it registered as a non-profit - that way it is less likely to be
about someone making money or creating a golden egg to sell off later.
-you can still have an individual voice if you are non-profit. There
does seem to be some myths about non-profits going around - yes you
can find examples of problems that have come about, but most I know of
have not had any such problems. If you're not trying to make money
there is no reason not to be non-profit - you can still sell ads, and
you can operate it with basically the same structure if you wish. I
prefer membership funding, and participatory involvement, but that's
not mandatory by any means, nor is foundation funding (although I see
this as one of the best sources of funding available).

Steve

Quoting Martin Langeveld :

>>> Densmore writes " NGO/community/foundation ownership could be ***worse***
> for journalism than corporate ownership if it enforces a "don't rock the
> boat" mentality." With the implication that corporate ownership is, ipso
> facto, bad.
>
> Well, just a note of protest here that corporate ownership does not, by
> definition, create bad journalism. Only bad management results in bad
> "product", whether it's journalism or pretzels. Bad management can occur at
> privately owned media, publicly-owned media, non-profit-owned media,
> co-op-owned media, or anything else you can dream up, not just if it
> enforces a "don't rock the boat" mentality, but for many other reasons.
>
> A look at the Pulitzer prize winners each year will show you fabulous
> journalism that for the most part is produced at "big bad" corporate-owned
> media. Certainly, those same media produce some of the worst journalism, as
> well, but perhaps that's because they actually **don't** have a "don't rock
> the boat" mentality, but take some risks and sometimes miss.
>

I don't feel that foundation funding has all that many strings
attached to it - although it certainly can.

Ranking ownership models is a good idea - here's mine.

1. Non-profit mostly membership funded ownership

2. Non-profit foundation/advertising funded ownership

3. Non-profit Institutional ownership (University Ownership) - I need
to learn more about this and how it works in practice.

4. Co-op ownership - for profit

5. Small/local independent for-profit private ownership LLC

6. Public Ownership - operated at arms length

10. Publicly traded corporate ownership

My ranking is based on which models have less structural bias/filters,
and which ones have a public interest mandate. I'm generally ok with
all the models apart from public corporations, which clearly doesn't
work.

Steve

Quoting Bill Densmore :

>
> Lisa (and list):
>
> Yup, you're right about a potential downside of "community"
> ownership -- where does the buck stop when there is a controversial
> investigative project that is going to ruffle some powerful
> feathers. In that sense, NGO/community/foundation ownership could be
> ***worse*** for journalism than corporate ownership if it enforces
> a "don't rock the boat" mentality. If I were to rank ownership
> options here's how I'd do it:
>
> 1) Private/individual/family ownership where the owner
> is in it in large measure for the thrill of journalism.
>
> 2) Foundation/non-profit ownership where there is leadership
> in some way empowered to act independently.
>
> 3) Co-op ownership (untested but worth a try)
>
> 4) Multi-market ownership group, privately held
>
> 6) Public ownership (TV/radio owned by universities)
>
> 5) Public-stock owner
>
> What other options are there?
>
> -- bill
>
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Lisa Williams wrote:
>
>> In my previous message I spoke in support of community ownership models, but
>> I do have reservations about them. One thing that makes me, personally, wary
>> of some of the community participation/board member models is stuff like
>> this:
>>
>> http://www.greensboro101.com/feature/display/16617/index.php
>>
>> Roch Smith, who runs Greensboro101.com, makes what I think is the right
>> decision to publish a report detailing corruption and mismanagement in the
>> police department -- a report paid for by public tax dollars -- and four of
>> his "advisory board" members immediately resign. Is the point of a board so
>> that they can resign in protest the minute things get a little hot?
>> Community organization may provide better chances for survival once the
>> founder exits or dies, since unlike a for-profit business there may
>> not be as
>> much pressure to find (or fail to find) a new buyer. But community sites
>> (and newspapers) depend so much on the verve of an individual editorial
>> voice. We've all seen the lousy effects of blandification of local papers
>> stemming from chain ownership and the management by committee disasters of
>> nonprofits. At H2otown I have the luxury and the freedom to maneuver to keep
>> the site interesting, without wasting precious time and resources worrying
>> about whether it's going to be okay with a boss or a board -- which is
>> fitting since I'm doing the work.
>>
>> And work is got to be where the authority comes from: we might
>> like to think
>> that community worthies of one sort or another will make good board members,
>> but the sad fact is they may not. The best people to assume more
>> responsibility at a community news organization are the people who come out
>> of the woodwork and start writing for it because they enjoy doing it -- they
>> have the right motivations. It's very infrequent that they're people who
>> are well known in town. The future belongs to the Nobodies.
>>
>> Lisa W.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Densmore wrote:
>>> I'm picking up on the discussion to which Jeff Jarvis, Lisa Williams, Steve
>>> Anderson and others have contributed. It has morphed from "Is it Better to
>>> Build, Not Buy a Metro News Organization" and I have retitled it.
>>> I agree with Jeff that advertising is one of the legs on which the future
>>> of news depends. For nine years my wife and I published two
>>> free-circulation weeklies in Berkshire County. We struggled -- and I think
>>> largely succeeded -- to do quality journalism without benefit of
>>> circulation revenue. It was tough. On the other hand, no single advertiser
>>> represented more than 3% of our revenues. And so there was really no single
>>> person or entity who had the ability to exert pressure on us, by threat of
>>> withdrawing advertising, over any single story. In a general sense we were
>>> dependent on the retail and business community and so our coverage had to
>>> be in the broadest sense supportive of free enterprise. But within that
>>> range there was lots of room for feisty, independent reporting -- and we
>>> did it. I think the great strength of America's newspapers in the late 20th
>>> century was that they had diversified revenues from both advertising and
>>> circulation. Where they got into trouble was relying too heavily on
>>> advertising and not enough on circulation. No less than Al Neuharth,
>>> (http://www.newshare.com/news/FCC_family_newspapers.html) the former CEO of
>>> Gannett and founder of USA Today, warned about this years ago in urging
>>> papers to raise the cover price of their products.
>>> I think Lisa's point about ownership and incentives is also important. Some
>>> of the most enduring organizations in our culture are not-for-profits. She
>>> mentions some. Another example -- parent-teacher organizations. Leadership
>>> changes and morphs as your children grow. But in many communities these
>>> informal, "chaordic" (chaos-order) groups endure.
>>> And so I'm drawn to notion that we want to find an OWNERSHIP model which,
>>> as Steve points out, isn't dependent on the "exit strategy" payoff for the
>>> owner, but rather upon a sustained relationship with members/owners/users
>>> that creates ongoing value -- and financial surplus whether from
>>> advertising, circulation, membership, donations, or service income -- and
>>> ideally all five. It should be chartered with a mission that has to do with
>>> fostering participatory democracy and community. The intent to make a
>>> surplus of revenue over expenses is merely a method to achieve the
>>> objective.
>>>
>>> As for REVENUE models, noted three sentences above, the more "legs" on this
>>> stool the better, and the more diversified the better.
>>> For the last few years, I've wondered if the "co-op" model of organization
>>> might make sense for news organizations of the future. Many of us probably
>>> live in communities which support food co-operatives. In our small town,
>>> there's one that is running well enough now that it is building annual
>>> surpluses, and it is looking at other businesses to consider entering which
>>> might nuture and sustain and community just as does nutritional, locally
>>> grown food. Many parts of the nation have thriving credit unions, which are
>>> essentially member-owned banks. There are still active agriculture co-ops
>>> in the Midwest. Even TrueValue Hardware (http://www.truserv.com/home/) is a
>>> co-op. So are The Associated Press and, as to governance, Visa
>>> International Service Corp.
>>> (http://www.globalhome.com/news/chaordic/bookreview.html) I'd like to see
>>> exploration of this model for the future of news.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Post mailing list
>>>
>>> http://mgp-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/post_mgp-forum.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------
> Bill Densmore, director/editor
> The Media Giraffe Project
> Journalism Program / 108 Bartlett Hall
> Univ. of Massachusetts
> Amherst MA 01003
> OFF: 413-577-4370 / CELL: 413-458-8001
>
>
> DID YOU MISS: "Democracy and Independence:
> Sharing News and Politics in a Connected World"?
> June 29-July 1, 2006
>
> WHAT WAS IT?
> http://www.mediagiraffe.org/conference/
>
> WHO WAS THERE:
> http://www.mediagiraffe.org/wiki/index.php/Participants
>
> VIDEO OF MANY SESSIONS:
> http://www.mediagiraffe.org/wiki/index.php/Live
>
> WHAT BLOGGERS SAID:
> http://www.mediagiraffe.org/wiki/index.php/Bloggers
>