Publishers who want to compete in bringing the latest news available first simply can not afford a delay of several hours (printing, distribution, etc). The term “newspaper” is already an oxymoron. Also: If I read about something in the print version, I often want to get an update on the latest developments. There is absolutely no way I will wait for that until the next day’s paper is delivered. Still, many publishers think that the web is an “extra” and that the print version should be the main focus.

It’s interesting that Benoit Raphael uses The Daily Telegraph as an example. They use Escenic Content Studio as the point of entry for all journalists, and all content is commissioned and produced for the web. The print edition is (simply put) a snapshot of the online content at print deadline, and content is exported from Escenic Content Engine to DTI for print production. The Daily Telegraph have around 300 reporters producing content – not “content for online” or “content for print”.

Escenic believes in working with the richest media and publishing the appropriate content in different channels. For instance, let’s assume a story with 500 words, 8 images and a video. The web (and mobile web) version will use all the content, while the print edition may only use the et and two of the images. This should not matter to the reporter producing the story – they should be focusing on the content not the channel or the presentation.

Publishers who do manage to publish efficiently to web often forget that it results in much more interaction with the readers, and that content on the web is part of a continuous discussion. It is no longer one to many, but many to many. A reporter needs to listen and read, not just write. Published content needs to be refined, new information may require rewriting or re-editing of published content, etc. There is an illustration at the top of http://www.escenic.com/products/ecs/ showing what Escenic calls the “continuous workflow”.

Interesting perspective. I think it’s crucial to explore new (more functional) newsroom organization models, since they have a direct impact on news production routines.

At the same time, I’m also worried on the possibility that discussions on business models and organizational elements may postpone a crucial debate on content quality, i.e., relationship with “people formerly known as the audience”", fact-verification on social networks, etc.

I think that more important than state that “most news organisations ARE turning to a web-first strategy” – we may need more international evidence on this – we must develop some research projects in order to evaluate HOW is this happening and WHAT are the major implications from this (possible) trend.

That will also allow us to go further than “bi-media schizophrenia” – a very limited suggestion since exclusivelly “psychological”. I suspect (hypothesis) that a relevant amount of news directors, editors and reporters still not understand WHY is a web-based strategy needed.

Best!