Subscribe to outside.in blog updates in a reader or by Email

Seattle Times Partners With Local News Sites – Is It Enough?

Today the Seattle Times announced an editorial partnership with four local news publishers. Obviously, this caught our attention. A major news publisher working with and driving traffic to hyperlocal sites is part of how we envision the new news ecosystem. Thus, we do commend the Seattle Times for taking this encouraging first step and embracing the notion of aggregation, connecting with their community, and taking note of the wealth of great local content being produced in their backyard. But how will this really work? Is this the beginning of a new news model or an interesting experiment? Well, there are some issues that should be addressed.

  • Limited Content: Why isolate this to just four content publishers? Why not 20? Why not 100? If you were the publisher, wouldn’t you want access to ALL the great content producers in your market? Seattle is a blog-rich metro with hundreds of local bloggers (we capture over 300 sources in this market). The barriers to entry to becoming a content producer are extremely low. New content producers are popping up everyday that the Seattle Times won’t have direct access to. My Ballard may have the best coverage on a specific event one day but the next day it might come from an unknown new blogger. If I were the editor, I’d want access to it all rather than limiting myself to an exclusive set of a few local publishers and possibly alienating everyone else out there.
  • Lack of Scale and Automation: Without these two elements, this initiative will likely prove to be challenging to manage on a day-to-day basis. For publishers in other cities that may want to adopt a similar strategy, no doubt the concerns will be around resources. Who will pick and choose what articles to link to and communicate with the bloggers? With so many news publishers strapped for resources, is this a realistic initiative to pull off successfully?
  • Sustainability: This is a one-year ‘project’ funded by the Knight Foundation. A grant from the Knight Foundation via American University will fund a liaison at Seattle Times and provide a stipend to the participating local bloggers. What happens after one year? Who will continue to fund this ‘liaison’ and the bloggers? What seems to be missing is a sustainable model that builds a relationship with the local bloggers and encourages a constant exchange of content, inventory, and revenue–a model that can be replicated at other cities all over the country.

The solution to the above issues and many of the questions is pretty simple–organized aggregation. This is why we built Outside.in for Publishers–a product to automate and ease the efforts of collecting local content.  We give you the ‘fire hose’ of all aggregated content organized by neighborhoods and places, along with simple tools to manage and curate all of this. As news constantly changes, we believe local publishers need this level of flexibility and control.

We will be watching to see how this Seattle partnership works out. As of now, it sounds like a great concept but in practice, I question whether this is a sustainable or an efficient strategy. We are excited to see more publishers like Seattle Times embracing the notion of working with smaller local content producers in their market to give bloggers the much-desired and deserved eyeballs and distribution. But publishers can do a lot more and faster. The tools are there… we invite you to see just how easy it is and take advantage of the opportunities.

  • GG
    I would think that, unfortunately, this venture will have a similar fate to WashPo's LoudounExtra.com. WashPo made the mistake of equating a county to being hyperlocal in scale; likewise, the Seattle Times needs to embrace their hundreds of local bloggers -- rather than just focusing on four local news publishers. Sure, a majority of that content may not be relevant and of high-quality; but you're likely to find some gems if properly tagged and curated.
  • bryantagas
    I am stunned at the lack of commentary in the Seattle hyperlocal blogging community about this agreement. Those who have affiliated have pretty much limited themselves to making the announcement, and those who are not involved seem unwilling to say anything at all. My commentary on the subject on my blog brought a disclaimer from both The Times and one of the "affiliated" local blogs, stating that there would be no content sharing, that no reporters would be displaced, and that only links (and possibly photos) would ever be shared. The fact that they started with only a few blogs is due to limited grant money and the need to work first with the most read blogs to prove the experiment. I think they are saying little about it because they really don't know how it's going to work. That's what an experiment is all about.
  • For the record, as someone involved with this. The last two lines of the preceding comment are exactly it. And this is NOT about "blogging." This is about **news reporting** - which is why there are not 100, 200 "blogs" involved. There are lots of writers in blog format but there are still only a relative few of us who are producing community-collaboration hard news here. Crime. Politics. Land use. Etc. And those sites are the ones involved in the experiment. More are jumping into the field, which is great to see, but some have jumped out after a few months; those of us in the Times experiment have been up and running consistently for at least two years, and if you're going to commit to a yearlong experiment, you'd want to see some stability.

    Not speaking for the others, because we all do things a little differently, I'd our site is almost a hybrid - blog format, if you have to call it that; community collaboration in a HUGE way; original news coverage in a HUGE way. Between the two of us who run WSB, we have more than 35 years of "traditional" journalism experience that is a foundation for the new ways we've found to discover and produce news in collaboration with the community; we also, in very traditional ways, have a business model built on display advertising, and hire freelance reporters and photojournalists to cover stories we cannot.

    We don't "blog" - I don't believe that should be used as a verb by anyone anywhere; it is so nonspecific - each author/publisher should be known for what she/he does is -- a writer, a photographer, or an artist, publishing in blog format - and what kind of writer/photographer artist - journalist? commentator? diarist? or? In our case: We report, we cover, we publicize.

    If this experiment in five markets around the country yields some valuable lessons in how big media can partner with small, serious, relatively established independent news organizations - maybe then the next step is to figure out how to work with the ever-changing group of small not-so-news-oriented sites.

    And to the first comment - This isn't supposed to result in building anything like a Loudoun Extra, or anything at all. Of the discussions we have had, resulting in the launch of this make-it-up-as-it-goes experiment, the word that came up again and again is CONTEXTUAL. Instead of saying, voila, here's your lump of neighborhood links from our new "partners," we communicate about stories, and if links to some of ours make sense in the context of the Times' home-page production, and vice versa, there they go ... for starters. I believe strongly that some human guidance/curation is needed - and that is why Loudoun failed and many other big-media adventures into imitation neighborhood news are destined to fail - no voice, no real sense of place, just aggregation plus "hey, upload your stuff here." Mass automated scalability is not the be-all and end-all. Really.

    One other aspect of this that I can speak to, less than a week into it, is the fact that I am such a news nut that I tend to fall into tidbits of news that I can't do anything with on my site - now I'm building a relationship, of some sort, with a citywide organization to which I can offer that info (I was a manager at two citywide media outlets before but have no special post-employment allegiance to either). Twice already, I have sent such tips the Times' way first. Will they ever have a West Seattle tip they give us because it's too small for them to bother pursuing themselves? I hope so, but if not, that will be a lesson learned - this COULD turn out to be a lopsided relationship. Hope not. But we won't know till we wander on through the woods.
  • camillac
    Great comments on the blog... we are loving the continued dialogue here.

    We do realize that the point of an "experiment" is to try different things and see what works and what doesn't. We do think the Seattle initiative is in general, a positive step in the right direction as big media publishers start to embrace the notion of going outside of their walled garden and recognizing other great local news producers in their market. The "make-it-up-as-it-goes experiment" is not a bad nor wrong approach; however, the danger in this experiment is marginalizing other local producers in the select test markets. I can't help but be concerned for the vibrant community / network of local content producers who are working hard to cover news and other local stories and not getting the love as one of the chosen ones. Where is the incentive for the new reporter/ journalist / photog who wants to start their own hyperlocal site if the distribution outlets are limited? Yes, there are many inconsistent sites out there with spotty coverage and sub-par content, but from our experience of aggregating 35,000 feeds spanning across 30,000 US neighborhoods, we see great local news and content coming from usually more than 4 local publishers in major markets.

    We are totally on the same page as Tracy when she states that some human guidance / curation is needed... cannot agree more! To rely 100% on automated aggregation for neighborhood news would not be wise (and not something we'd recommend). Our belief here is that human curation on top of automated aggregation is the ideal and effective solution for most publishers. We realize that every publisher has their own unique voice and editorial perspective. Thus, we will provide all of the content we have collected but leave it up to the publisher to curate this content to what best fits with their site / publication. This way, you get the best of both worlds... quantity / variety combined with quality.

    Keep the comments coming, folks. And if anybody wants to reach out directly, feel free to contact us at publishers@outside.in.
  • itjobs1
    Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
    www.Staffingpower.com
  • anjalikl
    Hi friends, I have a website where you can purchase luxury handbags at best quality and cheaper rates. Check out for my site
    Luxury Handbags. Take care
  • Delete.
blog comments powered by Disqus