lunes, 21 de septiembre de 2009

Los secretos del Financial Times

¿Por qué el Financial Times le va bien cobrando por sus contenidos online? Se lo explica aquí el mismísimo CEO, John Ridding:
[…] We launched a bit of a new strategy […] which was basically building up content revenue. Developing new publications and products, both in print and online. Developing niches really—specialist areas around our core brand. […]

[…] [The] publishers […] They’re going to have to find ways to provide content that they can charge for.

The answer is having confidence in the value of quality journalism, and we have that. Being confident that the readers will pay. And, in our experience, they will pay. We are seeing sustainable strong demand. In the information age, the idea that people won’t pay for information is really wrong.

[…] you can differentiate yourself by the kind of content, but also by the quality of your journalism. I think that it’s really just about making yourself different and distinctive. That gives you pricing power.

[…] our view is that the choice of what to cover and publish falls to the editors. We feel very strongly about editorial independence, and that is part of the overall business model. Readers want editorial judgment and editorial independence.

[…] There is a very strong feeling on both sides [editorial and advertising] that our entire strategy relies on the quality of our journalism. […]

[…] Our concept of quality journalism as a paid-for model is actually very powerful for advertising, because they want personal engagement. And so the fact that people are willing and able to pay for the journalism of a powerful newspaper makes advertisers more willing to invest in the production of that journalism. So, it’s sort of a virtuous circle.

[…] Our philosophy and strategy is to be channel neutral, and it should be up to the reader.

[…] I think there is absolutely a role for citizens in journalism, for ideas and comments, and knowledge criticism and forms of non-traditional journalism.

But that’s fundamentally different from professional journalism. This is a trade that’s based on experience, and a sometimes subliminal and invisible trait that you get from being a reporter for many years and understanding the way it works; building up your network of contacts you can trust and being able to articulate that in journalism.

A really good journalist inevitably becomes a specialist in a field, and they are able to communicate relevant knowledge more effectively than people who don’t have that journalistic training and instinct.

En efecto, lo de siempre. ¿Por qué lo de siempre no debería funcionar en cualquier soporte?

Lo que no funciona, ni en papel ni online es el mal periodismo. Antes podía cobijarse bajo la marca impresa. Pero hoy, amigas y amigos… no hay cómo ni dónde esconderse. El mal periodismo se siente tanto como una fábrica de papel: huele mal desde muy lejos durante mucho tiempo.

Publicar un comentario en la entrada