Robert Thomson: 'The Web Is Now Mainstream'
The editor of the Times of London says that newspapers should consider the concept of "complementary content" with their Web sites. The new U.S. edition of the News Corp. paper is doing "wonders for our Web profile."

By Patrick Phillips
I Want Media, 07/18/06

Robert Thomson is the editor of the Times of London, News Corp.'s much-heralded broadsheet-turned-compact newspaper. Prior to his appointment at the Times in March 2002, Thomson was the editor of the U.S. edition of the Financial Times, leading the drive of the London-based FT into the American market.

The Melbourne native is now overseeing the launch this summer of a U.S. edition of the Times. One might think that few publishers would consider starting up a pay newspaper today, as more readers turn to the Internet for news for free. But Thomson argues that print newspapers are "advantageous for profile."

I Want Media: Why is the Times now publishing an edition in the United States?

Robert Thomson: We already have a large and growing Web audience in the U.S. and it makes sense to build a physical presence that complements that profile.

The opening for the Times is in international news coverage, which has been reduced by many U.S. newspapers; business coverage, given that London is a global financial center; and the arts, in which I would argue that we have the world's classiest and cleverest writers.

IWM: Other British news operations -- the BBC, the Economist, the Guardian -- plan to increase their U.S. distribution. What's behind this British media invasion?

Thomson: Britain is cauldron of media competition, which tends to bring out the best in journalists and journalism. Having worked in the U.S. rolling out the Financial Times, it was clear to me that there is a larger degree of energy and inventiveness among British newspapers, and a certain smugness and self-defeating self-satisfaction among too many U.S. newspapers.

IWM: Can you elaborate?

Thomson: Journalists with the objective of being objective confront various challenges, including prevaricating officials and, occasionally, the threat of physical harm.

But they must also grapple with the frailties of ego and hack hubris. Our job is, in part, to bring the lofty back down to earth, so we should not harbour a love of loftiness ourselves.

IWM: In addition to sharing production facilities with News Corp. sibling New York Post, will the U.S. edition of the Times share editorial staff or other resources?

Thomson: The New York Post has been very generous in assisting with printing and distribution. But we have our own U.S. editorial network and U.S. specialists in London who are contributing to and editing the edition, which is based on an existing international version that circulates in continental Europe.

IWM: So far, the stories in the U.S. edition of the Times appear to be taken from the London edition. Will that change?

Thomson: What you see in New York is the "best of" the Times, in that some of the more parochial British stories have been left behind on these shores and the more relevant global and U.S. stories are promoted in the paper.

We also compile a business news digest specifically for the U.S. edition and, occasionally, change the Op-Ed pages to ensure that they have salience on the streets of New York and Washington. Essentially, we have a large collection of international material that is being repurposed in print and which is also being repurposed on the Web site. That content is being customized to suit our many and varied audiences.

IWM: Who is the audience for the Times in the United States?

Thomson: We are starting in the penthouse and working our way down the building, and starting in downtown Manhattan -- Wall Street -- and working our way to the Upper East and Upper West. In other words, we are aiming at Americans who have global interests and "aliens" who are resident in the larger U.S. cities, particularly in the Northeast.

IWM: Who do you see as your competition in America?

Thomson: Our greatest enemy is time. I'm sure there are many people who would like to find the time to read the Times, but who are already swamped by information and obligation. There is no one paper or Web site that is our natural foe, but there is the aggregated competition of all Web sites and of all the newspapers, free and otherwise, already carpeting the streets of U.S. cities.

IWM: What is your opinion of the journalism in the New York Times?

Thomson: The New York Times has virtues and some very good journalists, but it also has all the weaknesses of a monopoly newspaper.

There are more factions in the New York Times than in the Chinese Communist Party, and their journalistic meetings seem to be a cross between Cultural Revolution-style struggle sessions and charismatic night at the evangelical hall.

IWM: As more readers around the world access newspapers online, will the Times "of London" come to compete more directly with the "New York" Times and other global news brands on the Internet?

Thomson: We do compete with the New York Times outside the U.S. and, to a certain extent, outside New York itself. ...

The New York Times's foreign coverage is much like a roving spotlight -- a country becomes important because one of its esteemed writers happens to be in town. We have more regular, more textured coverage. If you are a Canadian investment banker based in Tokyo, then you may read both online or you may make the intelligent choice -- which is to read the [London] Times.

IWM: Is the American newsstand different from the British newsstand?

Thomson: Competition is the defining difference. In London, we have 13 papers which pass themselves off as national, plus three free newspapers and the promise of several more giveaway papers before year's end. The newsstand determines your fate, unlike in the U.S., where most purchases are by subscription.

The virtue of the latter is that you have a regular flow of subscription revenue, but the cost is that you are slightly shielded from competition and become risk averse. Being risk averse is not an option in the contemporary content environment.

British papers generally have remained interested in international news, meaning that they have more content on their Web sites for a global audience. For example, there is little doubt that India will eventually become our largest audience. Obviously, we provide better cricket coverage than the Houston Chronicle, but our world news coverage is also far more comprehensive.

IWM: The Times is also launching an Internet television service. How will it complement the newspaper?

Thomson: Times Online TV is our first foray into contracted video content. Of course we have done podcasts and vodcasts and, some would argue, oddcasts, but we now have a news agency-style video feed which is a starting point for the broader introduction of video services.

We will be generating more of our own content and want to become a village square for video, in that we will be inviting our readers to send their video footage of breaking news to the site. We will add further texture by providing relevant story links on the site, so that having watched a video update on the situation in the Middle East, you can be properly briefed by our experts in that area.

IWM: Inviting readers to contribute their own video material makes the Times sound like it's doing its own version of YouTube. How do you expect to benefit?

Thomson: Any sentient content organization, including the mainstream media, is interested in the creation of communities and in contributions from those communities.

IWM: Will the Times make use of News Corp. sibling MySpace or add other social networking features to its online edition?

Thomson: Sustainable partnerships are based not on "doing favors" but on perceived vested interests. In the case of MySpace, there are elements of our arts coverage (the Brit music guru, Peter Paphides, writes for the Times) that will be of interest MySpace users. But it is up to us to prove the worth of our content.

Newspapers already have wonderful "social networks," whether in the feedback that has long been a part of the relationship between reader and paper or the fact that great reporting sets the news agenda. It is indisputable that our reporters break more stories than any other paper or news source in Britain, and thus have a profound influence on the narrative of many a social network. The task now is to leverage and extend those existing networks across contemporary platforms.

IWM: Does launching a daily print newspaper in the United States really make good business sense nowadays?

Thomson: The U.S. edition is a modest enterprise that has already done wonders for our Web profile in the U.S. I recommend that your readers buy a copy and come to their own conclusion about its utility. In fact, they should all take out a lifetime subscription.

IWM: Times media editor Dan Sabbagh wrote in an analysis that "paper products are gradually becoming a shop window for Web sites, which is partly why the Times is on sale in New York." Is the paper edition of newspapers becoming secondary to online?

Thomson: An important concept for newspapers to contemplate is that of "complementary content," as each medium has its strength and weaknesses. One of the strengths of the printed paper is that it has an obvious presence on the streets, a presence that is advantageous for profile. And profile is advantageous in a crowded, cacophonous world.

IWM: Both the Times of London and the Financial Times announced major moves in their respective print and online operations last week. The FT's "radical restructuring" could include the loss of 50 jobs. Are we likely to see similar actions by more major newspapers? Which jobs will be the most vulnerable?

Thomson: Integration is more a cultural than a technological issue. Traditional journalistic skills are urgently required on the Web, but the transfer of those skills requires personal flexibility and sensible newsroom geography.

Journalists are narrators and navigators, and given that that the Web is a vast reservoir of information of varying quality, navigational nous -- editing skills, judgment, etc. -- is crucial.

There is also a challenge for the Internet pioneers at news organizations. The funkiness of being on the fringe has disappeared. The Web is now mainstream, so the sense of identity that came from the splendid isolation of the Internet has dissipated. We are now in the age of e-egalitarianism.

IWM: Will newspapers on paper disappear eventually?

Thomson: Not in my lifetime. Newspapers will have to justify their existence, with energy, creativity and integrity, but ink on paper is a pleasure to read and is a convenient format. Each newspaper is customized by each of its readers -- there has been much drivel talked about the Daily Me for the past decade or so. ... Each reader reads the Times in a different way, and adjusts the time spent according to her or his taste in subjects.

Pages can be randomly accessed and a newspaper has no issues with battery life -- no copy of the Times has ever needed recharging. On average, we have close to 2 million print readers each day and an online monthly audience of over 8 million unique users. These are enormous communities with great realizable value.

IWM: What are the biggest challenges facing newspapers going forward?

Thomson: Too many journalists are too pessimistic about the future. I am basically an old hack who started as a copy boy at an afternoon newspaper, making tea and ensuring that the pile of carbon paper was constantly replenished, and yet I have never experienced a time of greater opportunity for good journalism.

The Times has never had more readers at any time in its 221-year history, and we should have many, many more readers in coming years. The negative navel-gazing in journalistic circles is unhealthy for the industry and for individuals. Fatalism tends to be fatal.



PREVIOUS MEDIA INTERVIEWS