(2014-05-14) Nytimes Abramson Fired

Ny Times noise:

• An internal "innovation report" that Jill Abramson initiated has been leaked(?) to the public. (More precisely: the summary memo produced for internal distribution was leaked.) It’s going to take a lot more than some re-shuffling of executive deck chairs, or the creation of “audience engagement teams” to make a real difference at the New York Times, or anywhere else for that matter. But at least it is a start.
• Jill Abramson out, replaced by her top deputy, Dean Baquet, currently the newspaper’s managing editor.
  • http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/z2011-12-19-NytimesCeoRobinsonFired
• Then the full 92pg original innovation report got leaked. It has a less upbeat tone to it. “We are not moving with enough urgency”
• Will Baquet make this better? “The trick of running The New York Times is that you have to keep in mind that it is a very powerful Print newspaper with a very appreciative audience,” Baquet said. “You have to protect that while you go out there and get more readers through other means.”
• Of the five “renegade cybergeeks” who were doing some of the most innovative work at a publication that some, at the time, thought was doomed (The five were Aron Pilhofer, Andrew De Vigal, SteveDuenes, Matthew Ericson, and Gabriel Dance)... three of those people are now gone.
• Jessica Lessin thinks: The main flaw of the 96-page report is its focus on copying the strategies of new media upstarts, most prominently BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post, instead of defining how The Times can exploit its extraordinary assets to create a focused and original online business of its own... The result is a sprawling set of recommendations and proposed committees and working groups that are sure to stymie innovation, not promote it.
• Jun12: Thomas Baekdal suggests they're solving the Wrong Problem. The New York Times then goes on to make exactly the same mistake as the rest of industry. They absolutely and totally refuse to even consider a change in their editorial focus... If The NYT is 'winning at journalism', why is its readership falling significantly? If their daily report is smart and engaging, why are they failing to get its journalism to its readers? If its product is 'the world's best journalism', why does it have a problem growing its audience?.. Why would I subscribe to a newspaper whose product has such little relevance to me as a person?... You are based on a business model that only makes sense to a mass-market, but not to the individual. This is not a winning strategy. Yes, it used to work in the old days of media, but that was as a result of Scarcity.