News - The writing isn't on the wall
Last month Ofcom published new data showing that, for the first time, TV news had been overtaken by online as the main source of news in the UK. Although the difference between TV news and online is within the margin of error of the Ofcom survey, this isn’t a blip – it’s a long term trend, and the difference will only get bigger. News consumption on traditional platforms is in long term decline. Ofcom’s study also revealed a substantial fall in newspaper consumption in 2023, which is now less than half that of TV news consumption.
Part of the decline of TV news is due to underlying linear TV viewing, which continues to fall across all age groups. There is also an element of news fatigue – after a decade of unremittingly grim headlines and political psychodrama, viewers can be excused for finding other offerings in primetime more attractive. Additionally, part of the move to online is the result of those same broadcasters (and newspapers) launching their own services across a variety of platforms, allowing the consumption of news at the time, location and in the quantity that audiences prefer.
News has always been vital; now even more so
But, we can’t be dismissive or complacent – news remains a (perhaps the) cornerstone of the public service broadcasting ecosystem. It’s also important. A shared understanding of the world is vital - two hundred and fifty years ago, Thomas Jefferson said that “a well-informed citizenry is the best defence against tyranny”. In a world of bad actors, organised disinformation, AI generated deepfakes and echo chambers, high quality, freely available, impartial news is increasingly vital – and the consequences of its absence increasingly apparent.
Digital services offer new routes to the consumer and new ways of engaging them. But the transition to digital remains difficult. While news providers from TV and print have developed comprehensive digital offerings, this has come at considerably increased cost – both in increased costs of distribution (opening new routes to the consumer while maintaining old ones), but also in editorial costs – print find themselves incorporating increasing amounts of video; TV needs to add stills, text and audio to support its pictures.
We are on the cusp of news converging on one model
The next decade will see some of this cost duplication removed; TV is moving inexorably towards an all-IP future, with terms like “linear” and “on demand” becoming meaningless; at the same time, print operations are being slowly wound down, and the cost of flying bales of newspapers around the country merely to have a presence in every newsagents is increasingly difficult to justify, with traditional newspapers focused on their digital products.
This convergence around delivery via IP will also see a convergence around similar multimedia products, combining video, audio, text and data. There will be short form, snackable headlines supported by longer form video and text, and the ability to go into ever more depth and detail.
While online offers the opportunity to reach consumers in new ways, not all new entrants find it easy; individual substacks can add a range of viewpoints and expert opinion, but niche digital news operations still struggle for profitability, unable to overcome their high costs (Tortoise Media, the “slow news” startup currently bidding to take over the Observer, has not made a profit since its launch in 2019; Buzzfeed and Vice promised much, but have closed their news operations). For mainstream news, scale will still be key – the digital economy has shown that consumers gravitate to the biggest, most comprehensive services.
But while we believe there is a vibrant, successful future available, to get to that future, news organisations are going to have to face some hard truths and uncomfortable decisions.
The proposition needs to evolve
A truly multimedia news service will be some way from a traditional news bulletin or a newspaper front page. The rapidly cancelled CNN+ service was an exploratory step along the way, but we are yet to see the sort of immersive news service that can be tailored, paused, expanded upon, or speeded up as required. If this was waiting for me every morning – rather than what is essentially a pdf of last night’s newspaper – this would be genuinely transformative. It’s probably not about being the one to break the news - to be right is to be fast enough for most consumers, even the news junkies among them. Audiences want to know that something has happened, what it means, why it’s important, and what it means for them. This requires a trusted brand, expert communicators and the ability to provide background, context and data. It will also need a granular in-depth understanding of the consumer, a range of payment models from subscriptions, targeted advertising and sponsored content all the way to live events.
But it will require an even harder look at costs
Such a service will be expensive – and the money needs to come from somewhere. For news organisations who have spent twenty years in a seemingly never-ending round of efficiency programmes and cost cutting, the prospect of finding further savings will not be welcomed.
While some cutting has arguably gone too far (foreign reporting, investigation teams, local democracy among them), other costs have not been addressed and are still viewed as sacrosanct. These untouchables are going to have to share the pain. In print, the value of many columnists needs examining. Elsewhere in the media industry, sports broadcasters have ruthlessly prioritised spend on those properties that are absolutely key to the service; the same kind of analysis needs to be applied to regular columnists. Guest writers – particularly those who can provide expert analysis or context around a current news story – should be retained (and are a lot cheaper). For broadcast news, on-location reporting needs to receive a critical examination.
In 2014, I co-wrote an article arguing that IP had, even then, made 24-hour news channels obsolete; indeed their very existence was imposing huge and unnecessary costs on news operations that was making the problem worse. Going “live” to an intrepid reporter in the field every fifteen minutes was merely feeding the machine that news had created, to little benefit. We argued that newsgathering should be left to, well, gather news – and update us when something actually happened. Ten years later, this practice has only become more ubiquitous. Recently, I listened in astonishment as BBC Radio crossed live to a reporter outside Westminster Magistrates Court. At 6:30am, in the dark, with absolutely no-one to speak to. It is not clear what purpose this served (and later in the day the position was rendered even more ironic when the accused appeared by video link!).
The audience has evolved beyond needing visual cues to demonstrate an importance, veracity or urgency that the content really doesn’t warrant. By all means, do this when it matters; but if the news treats each story equally, then none of it is important. This sort of reporting panders to the egos of the news operations, most of whom wish they were Don McCullum, Walter Cronkite or Lee Miller, dodging bullets to tell stories that change the world.
Partnerships will be crucial
The next part of facing reality is to recognise that although there are benefits to scale, no organisation – not the BBC, nor the New York Times – can do everything. There is too much news, too many audience segments, too many news needs; the world is simply too big. How many people does the BBC need in the USA, or CNN in Europe? How many data visualisation specialists can the Guardian afford? Can the Economist seriously compete in video? Working together – which may require ceding control of activities once thought vital – will offer the scale needed to compete globally and the efficiency to make it sustainable.
This isn’t just about sharing costs; working together can achieve results beyond the scope of any individual organisation. Recently we have seen a collaboration between the Times and Channel 4, investigating the slightly sensitive matter of Royal finances. Collaborating doesn’t just share costs and resources; it gives the story a reach that it would not otherwise have achieved. Partnerships should not just be between traditional players: new players have the digital skills, engagement models and visualisation that can break out of the confines of rigid news structures. Imaginatively constructed, these partnerships can reinvent news for the next half century.
It may be that some news operations find a role in being a provider to others, moving to become B2B suppliers rather than staying in the crowded consumer market. The result will be a leaner, more efficient industry – but at the same time, one that can offer consumers far more.
Regulators need to help – and to be allowed to help
The final uncomfortable truth: there will need to be more regulation of the sector. News providers have traditionally been wary of regulatory intervention, deeming it to be inconsistent with free speech. But a degree of regulatory oversight can eliminate many of the bad actors, restore trust and help the sector make the transition to the new world.
Online harms (including misinformation) are being brought into various regulatory regimes in many territories; to enforce this, the platforms will need much more rigorous monitoring and swifter takedown (and preferably prevention of it ever being shown); this is likely to require stiffer penalties to ensure it happens.
In addition to the stick, there should also be a carrot. News organisations (and collaborations) that offer high quality, impartial, public service news should be afforded prominence on platforms and in search results; fair value compensation if their news is used by platforms or AI training models, and a realistic interpretation of where working together is in the consumer interest rather than raising competition or plurality concerns.
In the UK, Ofcom is currently setting out on its latest review of Public Service Media, which will set the context for the industry and how it is regulated over the next decade. A focus on news, and a widening of what and who it considers Public Service News, could ensure that the sector has the regulatory support it needs to make the final digital transition. We cannot afford to get this wrong – the news industry has only just made it through the last two decades, and we all need it to prosper for the next two and beyond.
O&O has over two decades experience working in news; in that time we’ve helped clients adapt to changing audience needs and business models; manage the costs of international newsgathering; understand service propositions, subscription models and bundling; identify and construct partnership and co-operation models, and lobby for appropriate regulatory support. If you want to know how to make multimedia news work in an increasing converged world – get in touch!