Making change work is harder than change itself

AFTER a suitably copious amount of a certain liquid had gone round the table, several of the editors made their pitch: how about running a new series that will share our journey in transforming ourselves as a media business?

This same lot also assigned me the job of writing the first of these columns.

They seemed almost disappointed when I nonchalantly said, sure, go ahead, depriving them of the chance to employ their carefully prepared arguments. But I've been in this long enough to know that you shouldn't be too predictable.

Yet, they were not far wrong: I would usually have said no.

I've always believed that journalists shouldn't hold themselves up to be newsworthy, our job being instead to be objective reporters and observers of the news. Frankly, there are far more important things to write about; and who's interested in us anyway?

A few things gave me pause. Several weeks ago, two of the editors wrote a piece arguing how we, as part of the newly constituted SPH Media Trust, need to go beyond the often-stated quality of trust to really learn how to serve the needs of our readers better. That is, we need to be both trusted and useful.

It resonated strongly with our readers. Then, a follow-up survey found that many of our readers were also keen to find out more about how we're going about changing our business.

Here was, then, a great opportunity to engage our different audiences, and get their feedback, even as we evolve to serve them better.

The first useful thing to point out, and this may help newsmakers and readers better relate to us now, is that The Business Times is already much changed.

When I joined the paper an age ago, during the Asian Financial Crisis, it was primarily a print product with a static website that carried print stories. Today, the primary platforms are digital with print as a highly curated product.

Having said that, we are still referred to as "print media" and asked why not every story appears in print. We could blame our print legacy, but the question also tells us we need to be far more convincing as a multi-platform offering.

Recognising ourselves how we're changing is also important in helping us make it work. If the product has changed, so has the newsroom producing it.

There are, of course, still editors, reporters, sub-editors, artists and photographers. But the digitally driven newsroom is far more diverse. To the traditional mix is now added a wide variety of other skill-sets - from designers and videographers to podcasters, audience specialists, product managers and developers - all needed to become a successful digital product.

There is great promise in this diversity, but there are potential fault lines too. Different skill-sets also drive different interest groups. In the past, it was perhaps easier to find common ground because everyone, in a broad sense, identified as journalists. Many joined because of a similar love for language, united by a common idea of what it means to do news.

The digital newsroom, while containing journalists, also includes specialists who may not see themselves first as journalists. The risk of fissures is real, between editorial and product, between flexibility and structure, instinct and process.

There will be competition for scarce resources. Some amount of tension is healthy, but it's a fine line. The ideal state, of course, is to marry up the best of all these different streams.

A clearly articulated common purpose is crucial, then, in bringing together a more diverse newsroom. This in itself is often less straightforward to achieve than it may seem. There will be a contest, for instance, over priorities: With so many things to fix, what should be fixed first?

The answer will be different depending on whom you ask. This is magnified for a title that sits within a group that includes multiple products, all with different audience demands.

Should resources be allocated based not just on size, but growth potential? Is the public purpose equally weighted across all the titles? One does not underestimate the difficulty of such compromises, but it does make it difficult at times to put forth a clear purpose to the newsroom that will survive the next quarter's worth of meetings.

There remains a more fundamental tension at the individual level in moving from a newspaper to a digital product. As far as our journalists are concerned, many joined for the love of the written or printed word, the unique opportunity of working for a newspaper and seeing their work and bylines published on paper.

It remains a strong factor attracting people to the newsroom. This is an affinity that runs deep, and it cuts across the generations. Digital workflows seem to move people further away from the sense of craftsmanship and towards something more akin to production work.

Digital advocates will disagree; indeed, digital work requires a tremendous amount of creativity. But it does not change the challenge of providing purpose and meaning to journalists even as we call upon them to work on new platforms and in new workflows.

If all of this comes across as too unvarnished a view of change in our media business, it is because we have learned over the last 2 years that the endeavour of change, while uplifting, can often be agonisingly painful, gut-wrenching work, with mind-sapping negotiations to even just arrive at a common starting point.

Change also drives people away, even as it attracts others. Beyond embracing the idea of change, it is even more important to recognise what is needed to make change work for us, if it is to work for us effectively and purposefully.

The playbook by now, across the media industry, has a familiar ring. It's down, as always, to who can execute best.

• Off The Record is a monthly column by BT's editors on the modern news industry from an insider's perspective. We welcome feedback and suggestions at btnews@sph.com.sg