My younger brother, quite accomplished for a 17-year-old, is an intern at the Signal, the local newspaper of my California hometown area. His words to me were, “What do you know about social networking?” And now in a typical Web 2.0 format (GChat Archive + my slow responses):

My answer at the time was simply “good journalism.” I reasoned that despite the decreased interest in paper newspaper, the Signal could boost its online and paper readership with better writing rather than features and gimmicks. But after thinking about it more carefully, I realized that this might not be the case. Many people are on the computer with the primary purpose of enjoyment: reading “good writings” comes in as a secondary goal. While I can’t imagine why I’d join in a small, newspaper-run social network when I’ve already spread my social webs all over the place with Facebook, Twitter, and my blog, I do think that newspapers need to do something drastic to “survive.”

I put “survive” in quotes, however, because to survive implies that there is or was a risk of death. And to be at risk of death from a Darwinian/evolutionary standpoint means there is a failure to adapt and change. For newspaper executives to say that their industry is dying is to admit that they are helpless to change the machinations of a large but oh=so-last-century phenomenon. This does not have to be the case.

Yahoo! News ran an article today [link] on “wanted ’survival strategies’ for dying US newspapers.” The possible solutions include micropayments, hyperlocal news, and philanthropic schemes. Steven Outing calls for “voluntary monthly payments.” T.J. Sullivan calls for newspapers to go on a strike of sorts – shutting down online services to non-paying subscribers and letting people see what it would be like.

Epic fail, as Gen Y would say. These pundits and executives sitting around arguing about how to “survive” are as antiquated as their paper newspapers. For sure, they have the management know-how and business experience that they could only accumulate over many years of work. I am sure that if I tried to run a newspaper, I too would end in “epic fail”.

But this does not obscure their problem, or the problems with their solutions. Let’s look at some of them.

• Micropayments: Not even close to a good idea. Do these executives realize how annoying it is to send payments on the internet, even with streamlined services such as PayPal and Google Shopping? I’d have to enter my credit card number and billing address to yet another website. I’d have to log in everytime I used the internet and send my financial information more than I’d like, even if there was a system that collected lump sums rather than individual payments. Reading the news on unsecure public computers is out of the question. And what about inspiring and educating the future generations? Severe limits – Jimmy has to go ask Daddy for his credit card number every time he wants to read the news from a different source.
• Hyperlocal News: The Internet is already overcrowded with information. While all news must be taken with a grain of salt, hyperlocal websites must be taken with a cup of it. There is always an element of reputability that comes with mainstream news sources. Even if it were name-branded “New York Times Cambridge Massachusetts Select Local,” I’d think twice about reading it. And by the time I was on the second “think,” I’d be another bounce statistic on their website analytics.
• Philanthropic Schemes: This does not represent a sound business plan on a large scale. It is true, Wikipedia receives a lot of user donations. But that is because it is representative and near-synonymous with free-speech and user contributions. People pay because they feel strongly about the cause and their right to participate, not because it is the best source of information.
• Steven Outing’s Voluntary Payments: Good for small and medium sized online communities of dedicated individuals.. Not feasible for a large-scale, mainstream corporation. Just as I mentioned above in “Philanthropic Schemes,” this idea is noble but not a sound business plan. How many stores besides the thrift-marts do you see that advertise, “Name Your Own Price?” They’d be out of inventory in seconds and out of business soon afterwarsd, particularly in a down economy.
• T.J. Sullivan’s Newspaper Corporation-Led Strike / Black Out: This is the most ridiculous idea I have heard to date. While I respect Sullivan’s journalism, this idea is simply ludicrous. Strikes are effective when they are led by the people, not by the corporations! When all the newspapers going on their “black out,” their strike-breaking competitors will see their traffic and Alexa rankings skyrocket! Consumers will be left with distaste, distrust, and a desire to never return to those “greedy business executives.”
• Licensing Model, like Cable TV or Radio: Nice try, but still based off something decades-old. Whether the aggregator or the reporter gets the ad income does not matter from the point of view that the income must ultimately come from the consumer. Yes, you can print ads everywhere and collect my information, but you can’t block out my favorite TV channel or radio station. I have the power to click away. Honestly, I hardly see ads anymore. My Internet-trained eye automatically marginalized them. Try subliminal messaging instead.

What then, is my idea for profitability? I’m not sure – I’m an outsider, a bystander. I can witness an accident and tragedy about to occur, but that does not mean I can intervene.

However, I do know that it is not time for a newspaper bailout. Sympathy does not work in capitalism: look at our current bail-out fiascos. It is time to let the old style of newspapers and their corporations die. Good journalism will persevere, but not in the business format that it currently struggles in. Someone needs to rebuild the online news industry from the ground-up, rather than trying to bridge an old-style into the 21st century. Online news must be self-sustaining and reputable, with substantial user input. People don’t simply want to hear, they want to ask, to write – to join in. Why else would people like me blog for the public? I could just write in a private electronic diary otherwise.

Rather, the keywords to look out for are user-based, editor-filtered, free, reputable, and excellence. So many people are vying for my attention – dozens of online newspapers, fellow bloggers, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit businesses. You, Mr. Newspaper Owner, are not an AUTHORITY but a PEER, whom I rate with an extra star or two because of your journalistic training and track record. The Internet is about the power of the people, and you are free to try to make money off of it, but attempting to do so by taking that power away will either lead to 1) EPIC FAIL or 2) a worse-off world.

I am a supporter of businesses, and I hope that honest, reputable news finds a solid foundation for success in the online world. If I knew the answer, I’d have a Top 10 blog right now. If only.