In a fresh report from Newspaper Association of America there are a couple of original revenue generation initiatives for newspaper that seems to make sense at least for the shor term:

- St. Petersburg Times is handling 16 to 20 consumers’ shows a year with a great profit margin (45 to 65%). They are trying to lead the market in counsmer events. This is an extra activity of their promotions team. For each show, they have made a dedicated website.

It is a complementary market that can make more complete our service to both, advertisers an audience. Having events is increasingly important as offline newspapers disappear, because through this event is where our audience and advertisers will continue in physical touch with our brand. Community events with audience are a great way to continue building up a newspaper brand.

- Morristown is developing a hyperlocal strategy by launching weekly paper targeting hyperlocal communities. Advertisers want to be seen as par as the community.  They call it the “print version of facebook”. The model is simple: (only good news) of user generated content (40% of the content) and pictures, with hyperlocal ads. People want to see themselves in the paper and their neighbours, the same curiosity that drives social networks may push this kind of content that is entertainment. They may also cover hyperlocal sports events from schools with user generated content.

Similar to the case before, Morristown demonstrates how a printed paper can leverage on an online community to build up brand, entertainment contents, and a further user generated content flow.

Concept of bringing online contents to print is being used in other initiatives and it makes sense as a short term tactic.

These kind of initiatives may not transform a business model, but are a proof of dynamism and reflect a proactive approach to making more things in offline newspapers.

Full report is here.

Both of them were newspapers with certain credibility and integration within their communities that were passing a critical time for their offline business.

This document tell us about the concrete transformation that took place, and it nowadays may look basic and obvious in practical terms, but there is something really not obvious for bigger companies:

1. Top management must be convinced that the change has to be pushed in a centralized (often top-down) way and taking the picture as a whole, both, in terms of contents and in terms of revenues. Revenues have to also be integrated in decision making so decisions are adopted taking into consideration impacts in both sides.

2. Workforce needs to be qualifed to really transform their skills otherwise they would be just a heavier weight in the mid term.

3. An out of the box vision and leadership may be very helpful in order to transform a media.

4. Community is a key factor, and as community leaders, we have to change the way we interact with our readers

5. Technology is not core to our business in a media company, it’s an instrument, a commodity, and it’s has to be at the service of the organization, and it cannot be a bottleneck. Of course having strong technology in-house remains an important factor but more in terms of know-how that when talking on execution. Technology is really important as rotaries were in the past (but not more than that).

These are my own conclusions from those very simple business cases and these conclusions are a kind of basic philosophy on how to transform a media. I find media companies losing their focus and goal because they believe they are something else. They believe they are a technology company, a software development company, a service provider… In other words, if we lack management consciousness, workforce qualification, out of the box visions, community interaction and technology aligned and at the service of our goals, it will be much more difficult for us to run a sustainable business.