When my journalism career started 40 years ago, newspapers had the field to themselves and the biggest threat to continued commercial success was other newspapers.
The technological revolution, for so long held back by print unions who knew their days were numbered, slashed the cost of production and allowed new titles to spring up, particularly free papers with minimal editorial content whose proprietors eyed lucrative advertising monopolies enjoyed by many long-standing local and regional titles.
Circulation figures were everything, and as a young deputy editor looking for my first editor’s chair, I would scan the audited sales data published every six months to see where the next vacancies might arise.
Everyone did it, usually to see if their boss was on the way out, because newspaper sales increases meant the editor would be snapped up by a rival keen to know the secret, and anyone running decreases of more than three per cent would be for the chop before the next set of figures were released. More than four per cent was a summary defenestration.
Now those classified advertising pots of gold have gone, and the digital revolution has disrupted information business in ways few predicted and will continue to do so. Millions of people are now publishers, even if they don’t realise it, and sources of news are everywhere at the dab of a phone.
My generation read Sounds or NME and had a glance at their parents’ daily read, now young people use an average of 22 different sources very month.
Newsrooms have not stood still, operating round the clock, publishing news as it happens on digital platforms and reaching more people on mobile phones than they ever did in hard copies.
A modern news operation bears little resemblance to the one I entered, no crescendo of clattering typewriters as deadlines approach or vibrating floors as the presses roll, but screens showing what stories are trending and news teams reacting to both breaking news and what readers are telling them is catching their interest.
Traditional brand strength in the digital world is vital, but for trusted, well-known titles like The Herald it cuts two ways; it is recognised for its reliability, but in too many eyes it continues to be judged by out-dated means.
Despite the death of print being predicted for years it continues for positive reasons as an important revenue stream, but it’s not a measure of popularity. In fact, nine out of ten Scottish adults engage with a news brand every week, and 96 per cent see a local title once a month, which I doubt was the case 40 years ago.
Yet print sales are still regarded as a fair gauge of performance when digital publication is where publishers and journalists really earn their corn.
It is for that reason the Scottish news publishing trade association, the Scottish Newspaper Society, will from this week drop newspaper from its name for the first time in a history going back over 100 years, and will be known as Newsbrands Scotland.
Our publishers still produce newspapers, but the bread and butter is digital and in a commercial information marketplace dominated by digital giants, legacy attitudes towards news publishers and their brands do them a disservice which we need to do all in our power to counter.
News publishers large and small, whether members of a trade association or not, have a bright digital future bolstered by their traditions of reliability and trustworthiness, and while changing the trade association name isn’t a magic wand, it’s a clear signal to the rest of the media world that Scotland’s news brands mean business in the digital age.
John McLellan is director of Newsbrands Scotland and a former editor of The Scotsman
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here