Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:

Keep Newspaper Readers Happy - Stop Self-Commoditization

by: Ken Doctor October 06, 2008    

Ken Doctor

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

Thumbing through the dead-tree edition of the Mercury News - a quick exercise these days - looking for weekend movies, I was struck with this thought: forget commoditization; we’re now into the age of self-commoditization.

My movie tout sources used to be five. Joe Morgenstern is my first Friday read in the Wall Street Journal. He’s been wrong about one movie in four years ("Smart People"), and his writing is a sublime pleasure. I’ll check into MetaCritic or Rotten Tomatoes, just to see high scorers across the country, to make sure we’re not missing anything. Our son Joe is a film festivalgoer; we keep his emailed reports. Fresh Air’s roster of critics is worth a listen.

And, there used to be the Mercury News. Bruce Newman’s work was solid, his taste usually good and his take on the world consistent. Now as the Mercury News reels back to its early days, pre-Silicon Valley, rearranging beats as if musical chairs is being played in the newsroom, local critics have become an endangered species, reassigned to the amorphous “general assignment” and beyond.

Mercury readers see Newman’s byline occasionally. Usually, though, it’s reviews-by-wire-committee. Newspapers have access to dozens of reviews from the wires, and too many of them, like the Merc, pick those reviews as if they were one-offs.

Take this weekend’s Merc reviews. Nine reviews. Seven bylines. Stephen Holden, New York Times (NYT).  Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer. Christy Lemire, AP. Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel. Robert Philpott, Fort Worth Star-Telegram. John Anderson, Washington Post. Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times.

All have their talents, but I don’t read any of them frequently enough to trust their judgment. Sure, I can buy the argument that imperiled newspapers can spend their money on better things than their own film reviewers, given that film is largely a national medium.  But why not pick among the best reviewers - the web makes that incredibly easy - and give their readers the consistent, known-over-time voice and judgment they want to know?

Instead, newspapers have taken yet another franchise - film reviewing - and turned it into a commodity.

I've noticed a similar phenomenon with restaurant reviews. Again, as readers, we want a consistent - and experienced - voice. Sheila Himmel, the Merc's long-standing critic, took one of the earlier buyouts. Now we see a succession of bylines, many committing the cardinal sin of sprinkling the word "delicious" throughout their reviews - a sure sign they have insufficient food vocabulary to serve. Again, another franchise going, going, gone, as Yelp, Urbanspoon and others have become more timely and useful.

Recall all we’ve said about news, especially national and international news, being commoditized, available anywhere and everywhere, with readers agnostic as to source or byline?

Well, newspapers are now doing that with film reviews - and still other wire content, I fear. Commoditization is one thing; self-commoditization is quite another. It’s time, as newspapers re-section, re-jigger and re-think, to keep the reader in mind. In reviews, that means consistency in voice, in judgment and in byline.

Disclosure: None.

Related Articles

This article has 1 comment:

  •  
    Oct 16 11:24 PM
    Hi Ken, Can you tell me why most of these newspapers love to endorse a certain political candidate ? By doing so, it makes many people mad and angry depends on who these readers support.
    Is it stupid to do so, I mean endorsing a certain candidate ?
    Why can't they be neutral ? That way, nobody gets mad.
    Reply
More by Ken Doctor
Investment Resources
Money Managment
Research
Seeking Alpha provides these ads as a service to its leading contributors
Articles on related themes
Newspapers
Book Publishing
Cable
Diversified Media