Recently, an AdAge commentary piece suggested (in short) that news organizations must hurry up and adapt to aggregation as news consumers want more content and don’t care where they get it.

News Outlets Must Accept That Consumers Want More Content Faster — and Don’t Care Who Creates It

I would beg to differ. Trying to be all things to all people is what got media companies into this mess. And for upstart companies – and digital marketing clients out there – it’s important to understand that when it comes to content, it’s trust that keeps readers coming back.
Right now, brands have the unique opportunity to grab this ring and win their consumer’s trust via content in this market.

The Truth About Limitless Choice
When you have limitless choices, it will by definition make people care where they get content. A choice must be made. As an example, if there are two restaurants in my hood, why would I suddenly care less about where I eat when there are 10? Or 50? In fact, you’d probably pay a lot more attention to where you ate and get pretty picky about the experience. It’s because our media spent most of the 1990s trying to be all things to all people and bored us all to tears in process.
Think back. Media outlets spent most of the previous decades “aggregating” themselves into giant corporations. Big newspapers bought smaller ones and formed chains. Chains bought out TV chains. On and on. But as news sources were bought out and pared down nationwide, the remaining “super-sources” had to serve a bigger audience. As such, newspapers, magazines, TV news, etc. have all been trying to soften their edge from hard news to “news you can use” kind of attitude – because that’s what an average Joe in a focus group says they want.
So, hey, let’s talk to the average person about how they feel about gas prices going up and put it on the air. It was this watering down of their content that has made it become disposable. Now, the average jerk can cover a baseball game nearly as well as a beat writer.
And aggregation — more of everything, essentially — is supposed to make this better? No way. Do you trust Wal-Mart more — for say brownie recipes — because you can buy anything there? Why would I trust Yahoo more for political news because it has the most feeds blowing through it?
A Lesson From Media History
History shows that Americans traditionally have gravitated toward a few sources of news for their consumption…three or four trusted, bedrock, across generations sources. “I watch NBC for my news” or “I take the Daily News, not the Post” were often sources of great pride for people.
In Detroit, the News v. Free Press battle was honestly as defining as Ford v. Chevy. And before the corporate blanding, the News was very obviously a conservative paper, while the Free Press was obviously more progressive or liberal. Now, it’s impossible to tell the two apart from an editorial standpoint. And it’s not shock that no one really cares which they get anymore — often the answer is neither.
Chicago once had around 18 newspapers. It chose to have 2 big ones. And when they were independent outlets, not subject to Wall Street whims, sharing agreements with “partner” TV stations or having their executives waste time buying radio stations in Mississippi, they served Chicagoland well. Soon enough, however, Tribune became more focused on cross-company profits than running a news operation in Chicago. And you can see the result today in the company’s bankruptcy.
Look to the outlets that have stuck to their mission…the Economist, The New Yorker…The New York Times to an extent…Charlie Rose…marketwatch.com…This American Life…and even The Daily Show…they have maintained or thrived in this media downturn because a reader knows exactly what they are getting. And choosing that source means something to that reader.
The Future Isn’t Aggregation, It’s Trust
Trust. It’s more important than scoops, hot content or anything in the media biz. And it’s built with readers by being honest about what your mission is. And when you don’t have a focus or point of view…then you pretty well become as compelling as a lump of mashed potato.
This is ultimately the reason our clients should take the opportunity to be brutally honest on their content-driven sites. While media tries to figure out their model (and they will in time, let there be no doubt) YOU can become a reliable source of content. Be honest. Cover yourself like an outsider would. Let criticism be publicly posted and responded to. Become the forum for discussion of your industry.
Want proof? Look no further than this MLB.com, which allows its reporters to cover teams independent of MLB approval. And it proudly puts that fact at the end of each story. When Manny Ramirez got suspended, the Los Angeles Dodgers and Major League Baseball paid a reporter to write stories, take photos and publish critical commentary to its own Web site. And as a result, they have become the most direct, trustworthy source of news on that team. With that traffic, MLB can sell an ideal set of consumer visitors on ticket deals, memorabilia and live streaming of game coverage. They’ve even sold outside advertising and plugged major corporate sponsors – all for the cost of covering their own industry in a fair and predictable way.
So yeah, I’d say consumers care where they get their content. More than ever, in fact.
Mike Hudson