While interviewing for a few jobs recently, I asked a prospective boss whether the Web department had its own budget or was part of the larger newsroom budget. He asked me to repeat the question just to see if he’d heard it correctly.
Of course the Web has its own budget, was his reaction.
Of course. It seemed so obvious to him that the Web would standalone. And yet the L.A. Times is reportedly changing its practices and granting the newsroom budgetary control over its Web site.
This is the proverbial equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. In other words, it’s a giant mistake that baffles common sense.
As the print newspaper continues its unceasing decline in revenue, the higher-ups will inevitably demand more cuts from the newsroom’s executive editor. The ink-stained editor at the helm will look at his or her precious newsroom staff and then at the young Web staff and find any excuse to cut the Web.
At the L.A. Times, they claim to be merging the newspaper and Web site to eliminate redundancy. In other words, they’re cutting the Web staff to save print jobs.
It is imperative that if the L.A. Times or other organizations decide to give one editor control over both budgets, then that editor must come from the Web side of the business. Most print editors are simply too emotionally attached to old ideals about what a newsroom should be and that makes them incapable of deciding future staffing needs. Until the news organization is brave enough to place a Web editor in charge of the whole organization, itIt is critical that the Web budget remain out of the reach of print editors who will be too tempted to leach off the newspaper’s only growth area. This is an important check and balance.
Even if ultimate Web guy, Rob Curley, were named executive editor, there should still be someone overseeing the Web who retains control of the Web budget, and who retains equality with the executive editor. If the EE wants something, then the Web person will agree to the plan if it's a good one.
One disclaimer on this rule: It does not apply at organizations where the Web has never had its own budget. The culture dynamics are different.
Editor's note: Through the beauty of the conversation that is blogging, I realized that even a person with a Web background should not be given control over both budgets. Hence, the revisions. Thanks.
Comments (7)
How do you know anything about who should be running what at the LA Times? I think you're making this up.
Posted by Anon | July 13, 2008 1:26 AM
Posted on July 13, 2008 01:26
Hmm. I'm not claiming to know anything more than the couple lines about what have been reported by the Times and other media outlets. What has been reported is that the newsroom and Web budgets are being combined and that there are numerous cuts taking place across both the traditional and Web newsrooms.
Apart from that, I'm saying that in the future this is a possibly dangerous hierarchical construction. The Innovator's Dilemma points out that disruptive businesses are best developed outside the one that is being eroded.
Obviously, combining the budgets means the disruptive Web model is now under the control of the one being disrupted.
Posted by Lucas | July 13, 2008 2:33 PM
Posted on July 13, 2008 14:33
If you think the LA Times is now being run by the same old j-folks, you would be well advised to read Russ Stanton's bio, or the speech he gave when installed as editor, which are freely available on the web. Or one or two speeches from Sam Zell. You'll get a whole new introduction to the term "disruptive."
Posted by Anon | July 13, 2008 4:36 PM
Posted on July 13, 2008 16:36
I would submit that, at the very least, learning the name of the LA Times editor would be a good start before writing a post like this.
Posted by Anon | July 13, 2008 4:37 PM
Posted on July 13, 2008 16:37
Oh, now I see. The miscommunication is my fault for personalizing this point to a specific editor.
I did say the editor had been given too much power. You're right. And the editor at the Times is Russ Stanton. I don't know Russ Stanton.
He did have the title of a "Web person" according to the bio. Still, I don't know him. And I can't vouch for his actual visionary skills. You like him, then fine.
All I'm saying is giving one person control over the Web and print budget is dangerous if the organization has not grown up that way. It eliminates previous checks and balances.
So without knowing and working for Russ Stanton, I guess I'd have to say it still seems like too much power for any single person.
And you know what? I'm going to revise my previous statement. Absolutely no executive editor should be put in charge of the print and Web budgets. Even if someone has worked in the Web all their lives, it's probably still a risk. What does it hurt to keep the check and balance in place?
If Russ Stanton or anyone else is right, then the Web budget person will agree.
Posted by Lucas Grindley | July 13, 2008 8:18 PM
Posted on July 13, 2008 20:18
Rob Curley is the "ultimate web guy?" Have you ever met him?
Posted by Anon | July 14, 2008 9:55 AM
Posted on July 14, 2008 09:55
Ouch, for Curley. I appreciate your skepticism.
Still, Rob Curley is undoubtedly well regarded in the industry. I'm not dumb enough to make a comment any which way on the truth in that regard.
Back to the point of this post . . . no one can determine who is the real "ultimate" Webbie. Obviously, there is dispute about whether even someone like Curley could be trusted as an executive editor let loose on the budgets without a check and balance.
I ask again: What does it hurt to keep the check in place?
Posted by Lucas Grindley | July 14, 2008 4:21 PM
Posted on July 14, 2008 16:21