Why Your Local Paper is the Blockbuster Video of Journalism
Outdated tactics, unchecked leverage, and the last rental in Bend, Oregon.
After gathering feedback and gaining more clarity on our direction, we've renamed this modest Substack from “Hope for the Exhausted Majority” to the “Local Press Project.” We even rolled out a logo and tagline: “A project to ditch ads and make journalism fun again.” This new name captures our mission perfectly: it’s optimistic and speaks to our goal of supporting journalism’s transition to sustainable business models.
I’ve been floored by the number of you who subscribed. What started as a temporary project to “get something up right now, Brian” has grown beyond any expectations. I am deeply grateful for your support.
In the last few weeks, I’ve had conversations with veteran journalists, editors, media consultants and owners. I’ve been fascinated by how leverage has influenced their career decisions, and I think most everyday readers (like me) have no idea what this means for the journalists they trust.
Most community journalists are content with small markets. They believe that only if the market supports them do they deserve to continue reaching that audience. It’s a marketplace they want to compete in fairly and win.
However, I’ve yet to meet one who would choose their financial compensation package if it had been offered at the start of their career. Why? Because it’s unchecked leverage, wielded with outdated thinking and abusive tactics from the publications.
Control Points in Media
Today, let’s zero in on leverage - specifically, how it's wielded. Think of leverage as the sneaky cousin of brute force, where you hint, nudge, or outright threaten to make someone do what you want. It’s not the friendly persuasion kind; it’s the “I’ve got the power, and you’re going to feel it” kind. Power, resources, influence - basically, the big guns to get others to fall in line.
Let’s break down a few leverage points driving the decline of legacy media:
Guarding the Audience: Community journalists often serve smaller markets and are more vulnerable to “only-show-in-town” power move. They’ve been told for years that they can’t reach their audience without the institution – a classic monopoly tactic. This tactic has led to declining pay and deteriorating behavior, as monopolies prioritize their own safety and convenience. They entrench, absorb, or crush competitors, compromising product quality. If you’re the only show in town, how hard do you really need to work to keep the lights on?
Control of Technology or the Channel: If you control the only megaphone in town, you decide who gets to use it. If the megaphone costs a million bucks, competition isn’t a concern. Ironically, technology promised lower costs and more options - everyone could have a megaphone. Instead, legacy media options are more limited. As the "local paper," products get thinner, editing resources shrink, interesting features fade, and control weakens as the audience dwindles.
Abuse of the Mission: After appearing on Bill Buchanan’s “Davisville” show on KDRT Radio, we discussed how history is a “race between heroes and idiots.” The danger arises when the supposed heroes are actually the idiots, using their cause to justify control. Local papers are vulnerable to this, often wielding the “we’re good for democracy” argument to maintain power. As the only show in town, they use this mission to pressure subscribers into compliance, excusing questionable choices. Why lose a popular feature? "We're saving democracy." Why is the product hollowed out? "Because, democracy." What a leap.
Influence of Advertising Money: Advertising money is a tricky beast because it conflicts with honest journalism. You end up serving two masters—the subscriber and the advertiser. Nationally, does anyone believe that massive pharmaceutical ads don’t influence CNN? Could they honestly cover a deep dive into Ozempic? Locally, it’s subtler. Maybe a business column avoids mentioning prices because that’s ad territory. But what if the price is crucial to the story? The piece loses a bit of its honesty.
Control of Subscriber Income: The biggest trust breach? Mishandling subscriber funds. Even ad-funded journalism has a deal with subscribers, who still pay fees. They don’t have to do that. In local media, where the money often detours from the mission. Owners might cut news room staff expenses but keep their income. "After all, it’s our company." This leads to a doom spiral. Subscribers aren’t fooled and will stop paying. Lose subscribers, lose ad revenue. The spiral continues.
Corrective Measures
The most powerful corrective measure is the subscriber's choice to buy. It’s a crude instrument - “buy” or “don’t buy.” In a market with no alternatives, it doesn’t signal how to correct and regain a subscriber. Once trust is lost, or too many promises are broken, the subscriber may never return. Fool me once.
Substack’s adaptability offers a more nuanced tool. Subscribers choose, one by one, who they will fund. The platform’s low switching cost makes it almost effortless, offering abundant choices compared to one option.
Advertising will never fully stop, but it can be contained. It belongs on platforms like YouTube, Meta, or TikTok. Advertising’s goal is to suck up your time so you see the ads. If that deal is worth it to you, watch the ads there. In the pursuit of truth, remember that any funding source (ads, government funding, philanthropy) comes with strings attached. They aren’t funding you for clear, efficient truth.
From the death and rebirth of publications, a new structure can emerge, with a solid commitment between publication and subscriber. Solo publications are booming on Substack. More will come. Additional teams will form, trying techniques to ensure fair funding or face subscriber decline. Some will become new tyrants. Most will barely make any money, but it may be enough to get by.
Consequences for Companies
Good luck to any media company that blames its audience or tries to coerce them into staying. Subscribers will see through the tricks. You’ll run out of ways to blame the audience as you run out of money. Neglecting their needs will be your undoing.
If that publication thinks it can coerce a writer to stay, they’ll be mistaken if that writer can make more money quickly on Substack. Then the audience punishes the publication, and you’re down the doom spiral.
Remember Blockbuster? The place where movie night dreams were crushed by late fees. In my Stanford financial accounting class in 1997, it was hailed as the gold standard for strong financials, surely boosted by my numerous late returns of “The Last Starfighter”. Netflix, spotting the flaw, offered subscriptions without late fees. Customers, fed up with Blockbuster’s heavy-handed tactics, flocked to Netflix and Redbox. What started as Blockbuster’s competitive edge became their downfall due to complacency and exploitation.
Leverage Isn’t Inherently Evil
Leverage isn’t inherently evil, but it's a slippery slope greased with ego and entitlement. Let’s be clear: leverage is not leadership. Not in media, not really anywhere.
As subscribers, we’ve got to be the watchdogs. If we’ve been too trusting, it’s time to put on our detective hats and demand a fresh commitment to fairness. Are we funding high school students paid way below minimum wage? If our subscription dollars aren’t going to quality journalism, what are we funding? Are we boosting democracy or buying a bill of goods? Can the community journalist afford to live in that community?
Positive, ethical leadership can transform this dynamic. Leaders who prioritize transparency, fairness, and accountability can harness leverage to drive meaningful change. They can inspire creativity, foster trust and build sustainable models that serve both creators and the community.
If we don't demand accountability, we might as well be funding the next Blockbuster: a company that rises, exploits us, and leaves us with nothing but late fees and disillusionment. And maybe one lonely location in Bend, Oregon, where you can still rent "Prince Caspian" for the price of a small car, after late fees.