Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Media Nashville Free Press: Biweekly Newspaper to Launch in January
Posted by Jim Ridley on Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:35 AM
The corporate dominance of local markets like Nashville by companies like Gannett and Village Voice has subdued the debate, silenced conflicting voices, shuttered the unfettered marketplace of ideas, and steered the ship of state into dangerous and narrow straits. Robust competition and ownership diversity are more essential than ever to the economic health, vitality and viability of our community....
The monopoly of the media marketplace has led to less in-depth reporting on politics and elections, the environment, minority and labor affairs, education, government malfeasance, assaults on civil liberties and civil rights, and a score of other subjects. As a result, the identity, values and informational needs of our local community are at risk.
To meet his mission, Erland says the Free Press will have no salaried staff, though he hopes that will change as backers come on board. He's even editing without pay. Content will come from what Erland jokingly calls "cheap labor"--mostly the staff of Radio Free Nashville, whose hosts include community journalists such as co-founder Greg Welsch, Ginny's brother.
As for sales staff, the paper's writers can buy a page--roughly $100, which Erland says would cover printing costs of that page for 5,000 copies--and sell as much as half of it to advertisers, hopefully at a profit. Erland admits that "a lot of creative people aren't entrepreneurial, and vice versa," but he hopes for a model such as a theater reviewer buying a page, writing a review on half, and selling ads on the other half to make some money.
Comments (29)
Showing 1-29 of 29
just because it's printed on newsprint doesn't mean it's news. this will be nothing more than a hard copy lib blog.
like
dislike
just because it's printed on newsprint doesn't mean it's news
A point which the Tennessean, City Paper, and Scene have demonstrated at times in the past. Unless, of course, you subscribe to a Nixonian argument for journalism: when journalists write it it is always news, even when it is not.
I can't wait to pay my $100 to write for the Free Press. Now that's what I call the marketplace of ideas. You pay to play.
I received an invitation to write an NFP column and I accepted it. In my correspondence with the publishers no mention has been made of charging me $100 for writing. Perhaps this is just one option among many on which Scene staffers are clamping down and playing up for the purposes of emotional effect.
That was the only option mentioned in the email announcement under "content developers." I can forward it to you if you like, but here's the direct block of text:
The Nashville Free Press Content Developers:
* Purchase a page (or pages) for a pro-rated price
(Cost based on portion of space used. Must use at least one-half of page for content)
* Can sell ads on the rest of the page and retain all revenues.
**Seeking Content Developers for Dining, Theatre, Sports and other subjects**
ADVERTISE in TNFP
The Nashville Free Press will launch in January and will publish every two weeks. It will be distributed free in busy locations throughout Middle Tennessee.
INTRODUCTORY AD RATE: $5 per inch. (Regular rate $8 per inch.)
Page Sponsorships also available.
"The corporate dominance of local markets like Nashville by companies like Gannett and Village Voice has subdued the debate, silenced conflicting voices, shuttered the unfettered marketplace of ideas, and steered the ship of state into dangerous and narrow straits."
Subdued the debate?
What a crock.
The Scene is liberal
The Tennessean is liberal.
Now we'll have another new liberal rag.
Yeah there's a real shortage of the lefty version of "news" around here.
Pink, I'm confused by your sourcing here.
Is the "caller" in the last set of quotes you?
Did you call Paul Erland or Ginny Welsch to get them to discuss their "content developer" model? If so, did you ask if they're really doing "pay to play" or whatever, or if the pages will be marked as advertising content?
I'm honestly baffled by how unclear your writing is here.
I'm going to make the obvious prediction that this little venture will be short-lived. And S-Town Mike, if they're not even paying their writers, I don't think any of us is sweating over the possibility that the NFP will run us out of business...the economy can do that just as efficiently on its own.
I should have just said "I" for clarity's sake, but I thought it would be obvious from the byline the caller was me, and I always feel kind of pompous announcing myself in a story. Yes, I called Paul Erland, who gave me the example of the theater reviewer. He did not say if the pages would be marked as advertising content, but what he described to me was a theater review, not some kind of "advertorial" puffing the advertiser.
DG, I'm honestly baffled by your comment. I'm not sure what was unclear in the post, but it all made perfect sense to me.
Having seen what Ginny and Greg Welsch have managed to accomplish on a shoestring with Radio Free Nashville, I wouldn't count them out for a second. They faced every kind of obstacle from Mother Nature to the FCC in getting that station on the air. People told them for several years they'd never get a license, and they did; people told them they'd never get on the air, and they did; people told them they'd never last, and their fourth anniversary is coming up in April.
I'd say running a low-wattage radio station is a little different than trying to start a paper, Mr. Pink. Especially now, when advertisers, who already have a death grip on their advertising dollars, won't be lining up to throw money into the pages of an unproven start-up.
Jack, stop sucking up. What I wrote was perfectly clear. What I didn't find clear was the slightness of the transition between the quote from the e-mail and the interview with Erland.
Outsourcing both the content and the sales to the same individual is off-putting. Of course, blogs do this, as the sneering jerk in comment #1 ("libs," duh huh) points out. But those ads are handled by third parties who do this kind of thing all the time, and there are definite metrics for views.
I like that Mike will be writing for them, but yeah, it feels a little sketchy. Then again, nobody's exempt: the Tennessean provides the worst reporting on local real estate imaginable, and I don't doubt for a second that it's because they're terrified of losing advertisers by being honest about what a calamity the local housing market really is.
You're right that it's a whole different business model. But in some ways, I'd say the radio station is harder, just because you don't need a license to start a paper. You've already got something to sell.
If anybody sucks up around here, it's me to Jack. By the way, your shoes are ready, sir.
DG, I wasn't implying that your comment wasn't clear. I was baffled that you thought what Jim wrote was bafflingly unclear. It seemed perfectly clear to me.
I wasn't sucking up. I think Ridley's a complete asshole. But I understood what he wrote.
I'm afraid Jim misunderstood a bit what we are doing at the Nashville Free Press. TNFP is NOT charging writers; we are looking for content providers in areas where we do not have expertise, or where we do not have people to adequately cover the issue, like dining, and theatre, etc.
Someone can 'buy' that page and develop it. But fifty percent of the page must be content: news/profiles/notices of events and NOT editorial in nature. Content providers will be thoroughly "vetted" and there will be guidelines--we will have the right to edit whatever they submit. And the content must be related to the broad issue that the page is covering. The pages can not and will not be advertorials.
The other fifty percent of that page can be sold as ad content, if the developer wishes, with the page owner keeping those sales revenues.
As for news, we have a stable of good, solid writers who will be covering issues and news that is for the most part completely ignored by the corporate media. For example, the new law that allows the government to seize the assets, and denying access to lawyers and doctors of anyone -and their spouses and dependent children - involved in anything that aims to 'influence government policy' in Iraq or Lebanon. That would include things like holding a sign outside a government office. That's the kind of information TNFP will bring to the fore. We'll also cover what's happening at the local and state level, and how it all affects the real lives of Nashvillians.
I'd be happy to send anyone a sample copy of the paper - just email me. And I think that people will be pleased at how passion and educated our writers are about the issues at hand. We act best and participate most fully in our democracy when we are fully informed about what's going on.
How can having another source of information be anything but good?
So let me get this straight. Writers will buy a page, then sell half of it to advertisers, and the result isn't going to be "advertorial." How's that going to work? I'm thinking that if I bought a page and tried to sell some of it, the advertiser might want to have some say-so about what I write on my part of the page.
It's an interesting idea. I would hope there's a bright line between the paid-for content pages and the more traditional parts of the paper.
Ginny, what other papers have followed this model?
How can having another source of information be anything but good?
I didn't think I was implying anything otherwise.
I wrote another post that seems to have vanished, but I'll try again. I am indeed confused about the term "content developer." This is someone who is not actually the writer or "content provider," but a third party who acts almost as editor of the page? Does this person go out and find both the writer *and* the advertisers? And can a content provider be a content developer?
I wish the Scene wouldn't constantly try to run down all other print media in this town. I'm not going to rant about the Scene's problems (I've stated it before), but you guys are no longer the scrappy underdogs of the ADF/Dobie days, and this sort of thing makes you look like pricks.
Now it's my turn to be mystified. How is my piece in any way running them down? I'm trying to let everyone know they're out there.
The "there's a reason" comment about the wall between editorial and sales is what I took as a bit of snark.
Of course, I have the same concern, and this is a blog after all, not a news wire. And re-reading it, I recognize that you were fairly positive in tone. On the whole, I guess I was wrong. My apologies, Jim. You'll be delighted to know that you're not a prick after all!
