USA Today blows up the newsroom again

This past week we learned that USA Today was launching a major rethinking of its newsroom structure. The Associated Press reported:

“USA Today, the nation’s second largest newspaper, is making the most dramatic overhaul of its staff in its 28-year history as it de-emphasizes its print edition and ramps up its effort to reach more readers and advertisers on mobile devices.”

The goal is to focus less on print, more on the Web and mobile, and the search for a new audience. Sounds good so far. But it’s the details where things start to get interesting:

“The newsroom instead will be broken up into a cluster of ‘content rings’ each headed up by editors who will be appointed later this year. The newly created content group will be overseen by Susan Weiss, who had been managing editor of the Life section. As executive editor of content, Weiss will report to USA Today Editor John Hillkirk.”

That move was applauded by design guru Mario Garcia:

“Indeed, out go the traditional departments that have been the cornerstone of newspapers worldwide; in comes an approach where the tyranny of departmentalizing goes out the window, to allow for a more flexible and content driven force to prevail in the newsroom.”

Here’s what’s good about it. The traditional departments are tied to the print sections. As along as they remain in place, the core culture of the newsroom is built around the print edition. And incentives remain tied to print, because section editors are thinking everyday about how to serve the print beast which needs things like centerpieces to make them work.

Pulling away from that way of thinking will require more than just re-organizing the newsroom into different groups. Remember, just four years ago, Gannett was revolutionizing its newsrooms, turning them into “information centers.”

At the time, one Gannett exec said: “We will no longer be print-centric. We will be multi-platform ready 24/7.”

It’s not clear to what degree if any that USA Today got on board with this change. But if not, why not? Why, four years later, is USA Today suddenly re-discovering the wisdom of moving away from a print-centric newsroom? The point is that it takes more than memos and slideshows and layoffs and job title changes to reinvent the culture and the product.

Because the print product will still be there, and it will still have the same needs. Where this new approach will succeed or fail is in the dozens of decisions that get made every day in the newsroom about where to focus efforts. The people on the frontlines, the editors and staff, have to buy this new approach and fight to make it work every day. As the AP story notes:

“Although USA Today still makes most of its money from its print edition, the reorganization revolves around smart phones and computer tablets such as Apple Inc.’s iPad, which are creating new ways to sell subscriptions and advertising.

‘We have to go where the audience is,’ Hillkirk said. ‘If people are hitting the iPad like crazy, or the iPhone or other mobile devices, we’ve got to be there with the content they want, when they want it.’ “

Absolutely the right mindset.

Now, here’s the part where students of tradition will pause, and swallow hard:

“In a move that may raise conflict-of-interest questions, Weiss will have a ‘collaborative relationship’ with USA Today’s newly appointed vice president of business development, Rudd Davis, according to one slide.”

At this point, with revenue in a nosedive, all news organizations need to be exploring new ways of generating income. And in theory, there should be nothing wrong with creating more ties between business and editorial sides. Traditionalists seem to forget that back in more flush times, newspapers always ran special sections around certain topics that were initiated by the business side, largely because they could sell ads, and then the newsroom trotted along to create relevant stories to fill the section.

What USA Today must be careful to navigate is what is truly driving newsroom decisions. For instance, there’s nothing wrong with launching a green tech micro-site because the paper sees big advertising potential there. But the content can still be hard hitting and thought provoking and critical, without just being Valentines written to potential advertisers. If that happens, or appears to be happening, then the paper’s credibility will take a big hit.

Finally, what the story didn’t mention, but was hopefully in the presentation to USA staffers, was talk of new job descriptions in this new newsroom. Will there be new community managers, journalist programmers, etc.? I hope this is a part of the big change, but we’ll see. It’s no fun to see them cutting 130 jobs. But hopefully some of that leaves them room to bring in non-traditional newsroom employees who can infuse this new structure with some radical thinking.