Last week I attended the yearlong NewspaperNext project's unveiling of the final report. Not surprisingly, it's getting mixed reviews, depending on expectations and predispositions. Jeff Jarvis and Susan Mernit go negative. Len Witt pokes fun at the lingo but also finds value. Somewhere around here I have a Deutsche Bank analysis that suggests investing in companies that actually follow the recommendations.
As a member of the task force, I've been along for the ride, so I was not surprised. I had hoped for something more concrete -- don't we always? But my expectations were controlled.
What emerged is best described as a how-to manual for innovation at newspapers. It covers learning to recognize the differences between disruptive and sustaining innovation, how to recognize opportunities and not just threats, how to assess ideas, how to test/learn/adjust.
N2 redefines "the core" as the portfolio of existing products, including the typical existing newspaper website. There are ways to do a much better job in the "core," much of them built around the "jobs to be done" analysis. Newspapers in this regard remind me of the camping knife I had when I was a kid. It had a fork, a spoon, a knife, a bottle opener -- and it wasn't very good at forking, spooning, cutting or opening. (I cringe every time I see an ad campaign for a newspaper website that boasts how it has everything under the sun. Because a little voice in my head says, "and none of it worth a damn.")
There also is a "non-core" category where N2 recommends the development of utility-focused services, databases, unlocking the "collective wisdom" of the community by facilitating user interaction around utility, and the establishment of general community interaction platforms (citing WickedLocal.com and BlufftonToday.com as examples).
There is an important section on creating "innovation structures and enablers." Newspaper organizations are poorly suited to innovation, and declaring something like "this is the year of innovation at our company" will accomplish exactly nothing unless processes and structures are created to make it possible. This includes protecting innovation from operational priorities, but also protecting it from too many "big ship" comforts. We have to understand how to require innovations to prove their own viability, and I think the report does a good job of explaining that.
It would be a fair criticism that there's nothing really new in this synthesis of existing concepts, some coming from Innosight and Clayton Christensen, others from those of us who have been agitating for years on points such as personal utility and the interactive nature of the net. But do we really need anything new in that area? What we need is to internalize these learnings and take constructive action at our various companies.
Besides, if everybody "got it" people like me would have to get real jobs.