Andrew Gowers: 'Newspapers Have to Change'
The editor of the Financial Times suggests that the "world's best newspaper" may one day consider a change in format. Also: the FT's online business model "could be completely different in a few years' time."

By Patrick Phillips
I Want Media, 07/18/05

Andrew Gowers is the editor of the Financial Times, the London-based global business newspaper, printed in 23 cities around the world. Gowers, editor of the FT since October 2001, is responsible for running both the FT's print and online editorial operations.

Gowers says he believes that American media consumers are far more Internet savvy than Brits. He dismisses recent reports that the FT may be put up for sale as "froth and nonsense," and insists that the financial paper doesn't compete directly with the Wall Street Journal.

I Want Media: The Financial Times is ranked No. 1 on a new list of the "world's best newspapers." What attributes of the FT helped the paper to obtain this win?

Andrew Gowers: The survey drew on responses from at least 1,000 international opinion formers, who no doubt can speak for themselves. I can only add that we were honored to be named the world's best newspaper.

I presume we were chosen because we aspire to the highest standards of quality in our reporting, aim to provide the most sophisticated analysis and independent comment, and take a truly global perspective on the worlds of politics, economics and business.

IWM: How is the FT a superior financial newspaper to the Wall Street Journal?

Gowers: I don't think such a comparison is terribly helpful. The Wall Street Journal is a very fine newspaper, as is the FT. Each has different strengths, though. We admire the Journal for its in-depth, investigative reporting of business and financial stories in the U.S. and for the robust, right-wing views expressed on its comment page.

I take pride in the FT's fast and concise reporting of everything relevant to global decision-makers, our exclusive access to heads of companies, governments and other important actors, our analysis of international affairs, and the enormous range and depth of our comment on business, politics, culture, the economy and financial markets.

IWM: Did the terrorist bombings in London have an impact on the FT?

Gowers: Obviously our staff were affected, as every organization based in London -- but only in terms of disrupted travel. Thankfully, nobody was hurt.

Our coverage of the events and reactions to them was fast and comprehensive, both in print and online. And we had a major increase in online traffic during the day -- about twice the normal number of users of FT.com.

IWM: A U.S. federal judge jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to reveal a confidential source. How would the FT respond if one of its reporters was in a similar situation?

Gowers: This is a murky and disreputable affair, but broadly I think the New York Times and Judy Miller have done what we would have done in the circumstances.

The protection of confidential sources is a paramount element of responsible and independent journalism. I have personal experience of legal tangles on this issue, and I have to say that the courts do not have a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of journalists in a free society.

IWM: Recent reports suggest that Pearson, the FT's owner, may consider putting the paper up for sale. Is there any truth to those rumors?

Gowers: What purported to be press reporting on this question in recent months was very largely froth and nonsense, built on the fantasies of our competitors. Pearson has, to my knowledge, not even considered putting the FT up for sale, and the company remains a very good owner for the FT.

IWM: The FT has experimented with publishing a tabloid edition for special reports. Would the FT consider abandoning its broadsheet format as a number of other newspapers have done?

Gowers: We have no plans to go tabloid, for a host of good reasons. In my view the tabloid format dumbs journalism down -- it oversimplifies complex issues and emphasizes froth over substance.

But that does not mean we intend to stay the size we are now forever. There are other formats -- for example, the Berliner size that the Guardian is preparing to adopt -- that could one day be attractive for the FT, too. And of course, our international editions are already in a smaller format than our U.K. edition.

IWM: Does the FT, which is based in London, regard the U.S. as an important market?

Gowers: The U.S. is a very important market for the FT, accounting for nearly one third of our total circulation. Of course, this is a small fraction of the Wall Street Journal's U.S. circulation, but we are not competing directly with them for the mass business audience.

Our target readership is the decision-making elite in organizations with a strong interest in the world -- both companies and government. And the readership we reach is of uniquely high quality, comprising a high proportion of chairman, chief executives and chief financial officers. Many of the high-ups on Wall Street and in large U.S. corporations tell me they read the FT first every morning for our concise, international perspective.

IWM: Do you see any differences in the British media market and the U.S. media market? For instance, are British news consumers more Web savvy than Americans?

Gowers: The British media market is extremely competitive -- in newspapers, if anything, quite a bit more competitive than the U.S. On the Web, U.S. consumers are far more savvy, and Internet media consumption is exploding -- but the Brits are coming along behind.

IWM: You said recently that the FT.com "is now sustainably profitable." Is the Web important to the future of the Financial Times?

Gowers: It is not only important -- it is a vital part of our present and an even more vital part of our future. Already we reach more readers with our material through FT.com than have ever bought the FT in print; we have growing online subscriptions; and our online advertising revenues are our fastest growing advertising category by far.

Of course, print will remain important to us for the foreseeable future, but the biggest growth is going to be online, and the challenge for us is to make the most of that opportunity worldwide.

IWM: Many of the articles on FT.com are behind a paid subscription wall. Do you foresee any changes in your online business model?

Gowers: To be honest, this is an area of rapid change, and I would not rule out the possibility that our whole business model will be completely different in a few years' time from what it is now.

I certainly don't think we've reached the end-point in our online evolution: more likely, we're just at the start. And I fully expect us to experiment with a host of different pricing approaches in the future.

IWM: What is your opinion of blogging?

Gowers: I think it is both a fad and something of great potential significance. The faddish part is the idea that everybody can be a blogger, and that this will somehow supplant journalism. That's clearly nonsense, and the vast majority of "Daily Me" blogs are like a vast, overheated Internet chat room.

But there are some things of great value out there in the blogosphere, and the growth of blogs has brought into vivid relief the true interactive potential of the Web.

IWM: Younger consumers are said to be abandoning traditional newspapers for alternate news sources. Are newspapers in danger of becoming irrelevant?

Gowers: I don't believe so -- but I do believe newspapers have to change. They have to focus on what they're good at -- summarizing, prioritizing, analyzing and reflecting on the news, providing unique and unexpected insights, and also using the Web as a real-time companion.

IWM: Are more of your readers moving online? Could the paper version of the FT completely disappear one day?

Gowers: Yes, more readers are going online all the time, and we welcome that. Does it mean that print will disappear? I doubt it -- at least in my lifetime. But I'm middle-aged, and I'd never say never.



PREVIOUS MEDIA INTERVIEWS