My favorite part of Lee Abrams' latest pearls of wordiness emailed to Tribune's weary innovators is this, from Romenesko:
Using my favorite music analogies--Imagine Newspaper CONTENT is a major artist. Currently they are performing in a old but reliable venue. What happens if the artist (Content) moves into a new super venue? Fans will love it--the music (content) will sound clearer...better seats...etc...If you create anew venue (look) and you do it RIGHT, people will love it. Not unlike a new baseball park. The old one was comfy, but the new one is amazing---attendance goes up. Fans love it. A lot of newspapers need to build that new park for the fans. Then there are the lights at Wrigley thing. Well, from what I can tell, Wrigley sells out EVERY night game.
Really earning your paycheck now, Lee. I'm equally inspired by this passage:
I think if you change/evolve impactfully (i.e. so the mainstream actually notices), here's what I think you'll find:
2% Pissed off (and they will ALL call--appearing that EVERYone is upset. But if you have 100,000 readers or viewers, and 1000 call--that's 1%. If 100 call...well you get the idea)
70% Excited and Happy
28% Interested and will give it a shot (mostly NON current readers)
0% Unaware that there's anything going on.
*WHEN NOT TO CHANGE: If circulation/ratings are trending UP, maybe a good idea to stay put.
That's enough. You get the idea.