You’ve arrived at a blog about transforming the companies that publish newspapers. And it’s a blog with an unorthodox point of view.
Here it is: News will not save you.
Why not? Because the disruption that’s pounding newspaper companies is not about people Read the rest of this entry
- Figuring out how the business has to change.
- Changing behaviors in the organization to get the new things done.
As most people in the newspaper industry can testify, both of these are difficult and relentless. There’s no “one and done” in a disruption as massive as the digital revolution.
And, unfortunately, success at No. 1 is no guarantee of success at No. 2.
Over last three years, I’ve blogged frequently about No. 1. This time let’s look at No. 2.
There’s a principle that applies over and over again when you’re trying to change people’s behaviors, in business or anywhere else. I learned it in a business seminar 22 years ago, and it forever changed my thinking and behavior. But, strangely, I’ve never heard or read about it anywhere else.
Here’s how it happened.
On Dec. 9, 1992, my wife and I attended a business talk in Detroit by a psychotherapist and business change-management consultant named Morrie Shechtman. At that time, I was the third-generation publisher and editor of my family’s daily newspaper in Monroe, MI.
Shechtman’s talk focused on how massive increases in the amount of available information were accelerating change throughout business and society, and how business leaders must adapt their organizations to survive and thrive in that high-risk climate.
Back then, the Web hadn’t even happened yet. Now, in the digital era, information is multiplying even faster, and the forces of change along with it. IDC estimated in 2011 that 90% of the world’s information had been created in the previous two years.
Shechtman pointed out how individual behaviors were changing, how businesses and organizations were being torqued into new shapes, and how the structure of society was shifting, all driven by individuals making choices based on new information. And he laid out a number of facts and principles that made logical sense of these changes. It was brilliant.
His analysis has had a huge impact on me ever since. It has tremendously influenced my sense of what’s happening in the media business and across all parts of society. Here I blogged about the implications for the entire planet.
But in midstream, one of his points struck me as absurdly obvious. So obvious, in fact, that I thought he should have been embarrassed to say it. It went like this:
“The only thing that changes people’s behavior is new information. People will go on doing what they’re doing right now, until they get new information.”
In the car on the way home, my wife and I discussed the insights we’d just gained. Then I remembered that seemingly obvious statement. I wondered if I had missed something important there.
Of course, new information changes behavior. If people are sitting in a crowded theater and someone shouts “Fire!” their behavior will change instantly. If someone tells you where you can get gasoline 10 cents cheaper, you will change your behavior the next time you need a fill-up. If you hear about a great job opening in another city, you may apply for it.
I decided to come at it from a different angle. I asked myself, “Can I think of anyone whose behavior I’d like to change?”
Well, yes. Back at the newspaper company, I was trying to transform our sleepy, slow-moving organization into a fast-moving, dynamic engine that would develop new products to meet new needs among consumers and businesses and achieve new growth.
I answered myself: “Yeah, on any given day, about a third of our employees.”
That led to another question: “Why are their behaviors different from what you think they should be?”
Hmm. Well, according to Shechtman’s principle, it would be because … one of us has different information.
Why don’t they have the same information I do?
Uh-oh, here it comes…. Because I haven’t shared it with them.
Our employees were intelligent, well-meaning people. They weren’t doing things “wrong” because they meant to. They were doing their jobs in ways that made sense based on the information they had.
Meanwhile, I was doing my job, too – I was looking out into our community and our society and I was seeing big changes in the way news, information and advertising were working. These changes persuaded me that we needed to make strategic changes in our operation, and that we needed different behaviors from employees.
Was I helping our employees to see what I saw? I realized, in those few moments, that the answer was no. At least not well enough, not often enough, and not broadly enough across the company.
This was transformative. In just a few short moments, I went from thinking those dysfunctional employee behaviors were their fault to realizing they were, in large measure, my fault. I realized that I had to change my own behavior if I wanted to change their behaviors.
I had to figure out how to lead by conveying new information all across the organization, so everyone would know what I knew. And I had to invite them to bring their own information into our decision-making processes so we all would have the best possible information and could make better decisions.
I realized, too, that there’s a corollary to the Shechtman principle: What doesn’t change people’s behavior effectively are personal opinion, shouting, whining, threats or force. People change behavior much more readily when they become convinced that the facts require it. And many of them do it with energy, creativity and commitment that take the initiative to a higher level.
Over the next few years, I changed the management processes in our company to include more people in seeing and understanding our internal and external situations. I had to work to at it, and as I did, I found that many of our people became better and better at making decisions, contributing to developing good strategies and quickly mobilizing to make change happen.
Shechtman was right. Our company moved ahead much faster and our productivity increased because a lot more of us could see where we needed to go, and why.
Since then, I’ve applied that Shechtman principle thousands of times. In organizations that need to find and adopt new behaviors — which is virtually all organizations — it’s constantly helpful.
I use it when I’m working with individuals or groups in problem-solving, brainstorming and strategic planning. Often, this means starting the session with the information we have and discussing what it means.
Sometimes you have the information you need; you just need to figure out how to interpret it and communicate it. Sometimes you realize you don’t have it, and you need to figure out how to get it.
The needed information can take many forms. For example, how is consumer behavior changing? How are spending patterns changing? What is the competition doing? Which of our products are selling and which aren’t? What’s the likely return on investment? Has anyone else dealt with this problem, and how did it work out? If we do this, how would consumers respond? If we don’t change, what will our business trend lines look like?
So you try to get the facts. But one of the biggest problems of business disruption is that some people have an amazing ability to ignore facts and keep doing what they’ve always done.
The change-agent won’t often succeed by cajoling or force; getting the right information to the right people, properly interpreted, will work a whole lot better. But even then, not everyone will be willing to change.
Another part of Shechtman’s brilliant analysis dealt with how people differ in their responses to the need for change. I’ll blog on that next time.
For now, though, I’d suggest asking yourself:
- Is there anyone whose behavior I think needs to change?
- What important information is missing from the picture?
- How can I bring that information into the discussion?
What does the local media company of the future look like?
At this point, the answer is pretty clear. There will be two kinds of media companies:
- Those that continue to focus on their traditional media channels — newspaper, broadcast television channel, radio station(s) — and therefore shrink along with the advertising spending on those media.
- Those that morph into local media houses that can connect any advertiser with any audience, through platforms, technologies and channels they own or don’t, to win dollars that are moving into digital advertising and marketing.
Let’s look beyond the waves of media disruption we’re experiencing these days. Let’s try to imagine the end state, when media disruption gets done.
Wait … will it ever get done? Yes, I think so — at the time when virtually everyone on the planet, during every waking moment, has instant access at will to virtually the entire body of human knowledge. (Maybe in sleeping moments, too.) Read the rest of this entry
If you’re old enough to remember Saturday Night Live in its glory days, maybe you remember the hilarious sketches set in the Scotch Tape store at the old mall.
The bit was centered on, and got its laughs from, a ridiculously narrow business model centered on a single product, sold in a retail location that was no longer the cool place to be. (I’d love to link to a clip here, but I couldn’t find one. NBC must be closely guarding its copyright.)
Those sketches came to mind this week as I was trying to think of a metaphor for the newspaper business and its relentless concentration on news. News continues to be our industry’s central purpose and the heart of its business model for attracting audiences.
I laughed out loud when it occurred to me that we might be well on the way to becoming the Scotch Tape store, or “Scotch Boutique,” as they called it. But the idea is as painful as it is funny. Read the rest of this entry
“I want my ad to go right here,” Jerry Coolman said. He pointed at the middle two columns at the top of the newspaper page — right in the middle of an article. He wanted his ad for lawn tractors to hit readers smack between the eyes.
“Jerry, we can’t do that,” I said. “That’s the reader’s space — we can’t plunk an ad down in the middle of it.”
That was 1983. Now, twenty years later, it turns out we can plunk an ad down in the reader’s space. It’s being done more and more, and it’s being called by a new name: “native advertising.” Read the rest of this entry
About five years ago, on a weekend, Derek May — then publisher of the St. Augustine (FL) Record — was doing what many publishers were doing at the time: Trying to figure out the steep decline in advertising revenue he was seeing in his unit’s financials.
What was the main cause of the decline? The recession was the driver, of course, but was it mainly hitting certain categories of advertising? Certain types of advertisers? Big advertisers? Small advertisers? Read the rest of this entry
To someone who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the newspaper industry, the hammer we have is news. And right now, the new nail is mobile.
With mobile usage exploding, our industry is determined to pound that nail with news as hard and fast as we can. It looks like a must-do, a matter of survival, and — we hope — a new opportunity to reach people, sell advertising and make money. But mobile is not the nail we think it is. Read the rest of this entry
Say the word “recruitment” and most newspaper executives groan. Over the last seven or eight years, our revenue in this space has shrunk to a fraction of its former size, and it’s still slipping.
At Morris Publishing Group, we’ve been looking hard at this vertical for several months. We’ve been trying to figure out two things: How can we do better at what’s left of our existing business, and how can we create new wins in this space?
We’re beginning to see path ahead, so it’s a good time to share some of what we’ve learned. Read the rest of this entry