What happened to convergence?

Submitted by Johnny Thoegersen on 01 April 2009

A couple of years ago all newspapers and most magazine publishers talked about convergence and hired expensive consultants to help them develop plans for how to implement a convergent strategy... but what happened?

During my first visit to the media center in Tampa I was utterly impressed, I had entered a new world that was going to revolutionize journalism as we knew it, and for all time change the dynamics of publishing, this new thing was called convergence. On-line, radio, TV and newspaper journalism under the same roof blurring the boundaries of where does journalism start and where does it end. We saw newspaper journalist doing TV spots, and we saw TV journalists with engagement doing on-line features, all very very impressive..

I had a similar experience visiting Nordjyske Media in Denmark around the same time, know to be the most extreme company with regards to convergence, also they were able to present an impressive collaborate effort in getting the daily newspapers (both free and home delivery), radio shows (syndicated to the nth degree), local TV and a hugely popular web-site out to a large audience every day...

Finally I was a Directorate member of the IFRA Newsplex project, Newsplex was/is a large and very very ambitious convergence training center at the University of South Carolina, later a copy was build in Darmstad in Germany. During this time the euphoria was at its peak, how would any publishing company survive without convergence?

There was a lot of attention on convergence between year 2000 and 2005....

The convergence idea was quite obvious and quite simple (on paper at least) - leverage your assets in the best possible way - also, it was the old discussion about eyeballs that started convergence - if we are loosing subscribers how do we make sure that they do not go to a competitor? hmmm we create the bermuda triangle of eyeballs where we in a vortex of information trap them within our organisation.... we give the consumers local TV, Radio, On-line and a newspaper so anywhere they look, they will end up getting their local news from us... obviously this business concept would be the fundament for new and exhiting business model for advertising, subscription and models for leveraging "all media".

BUT... what happen? relatively few media companies really got their arms around this and are still convergent in its original definition, granted everybody do multi channel publishing, but is that convergence?

In the current market where circulation is dropping off the charts and advertising revenue is sufferering, isn't covergence one of the answers? building tight multi media companies around multi skilled journalist? Or is mulit channel publishing the closest to converge we ever get?


"Share
Convergence came here to stay
Submitted by Placido Moreno (not verified) on 08 April 2009 - 12:35
Thank you very much for your interesting post, Mr. Thøgersen. It is pleasure to participate in this blog and share my thoughts. In my opinion, convergence is not a goal. There have been some misunderstandings about the subject during years. It is just a "state" (more or less mature and depending on each newspaper/magazine) that you have to measure, control and improve constantly. At this point, many newspaper companies didn’t understand that the first step to adapt their structures is knowing much more about themselves specially on key processes and change potential in the organization. Newspaper companies have not adopted learning from best successful practices in other industry sectors during the last 20 years. It is an old industry with old management habits. Convergence is an "ad hoc" state for each newspaper or magazine depending on size, audience and available resources. Unfortunately, there is not the perfect recipe and the success depends on ROI basically. The journey towards convergence mature states and I say "states" doesn’t depend on just technology or training. And I know you have great technology with Content Station and Enterprise, I must confess. It is about changing mind attitudes to embrace the change in the organization and getting effective support and vision in leadership. Second: In consequence, convergence process is very expensive. It is not new that when you are tackling with the traditional way that people used to do things in the newsroom you can see a lot of inefficiencies, lack of procedures, light years distance between web/paper departments; old habits, power games, cultural issues even complex psychological patterns of behaviour in journalists and managers. That implies a lot of time of research and analysis and, of course, money before making decisions about suitable technology. For many newspapers, convergence is just reusing/repurposing the content for several ICT platforms in a low cost way without any clear added value for readers/advertisers (better said without business model before launching a product). To converge implies profound changes in the traditional newspaper organization beyond the newsroom (sales, marketing, distribution, etc.). And of course, if there is something that can save the newspaper is high quality journalism in a rational and well-trained Cross-Medial way. Convergence came here to stay. It is the only way to survive in this complex world where Old and New Media collide. My point is: Technology + Process Analysis + Change Management = Successful convergence/integration "state" definition to start this fascinating journey. But unfortunately we are living dire times in this industry based on Excel Management techniques more than Convergence Management ones. But no crisis lasts forever. Best. Plácido Moreno, Ph.D-MBA Founder Caminum Media Research & Development Amsterdam (The Netherlands)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.