Overturning the cliche of journalism with startups

Laurie, great points but I don't think anyone is being impatient here. It's more about fostering a culture where startups are encouraged and not frowned upon or marginalised. Plenty of people have ideas, but I'd argue that they're more likely to come to fruition in somewhere like the US where it's a bigger part of the culture.

Laurie, Breaking Views and Cricinfo weren't bought because they needed to be bought. They were bought because they were advantageous to the companies buying them. I think that's the point.

Isn't the main point that a good start-up requires a good idea, which may have something to do with the (seeming - hold that thought) lack of entrepreneurial projects?

Two start-ups I can think of from the top of my head that became wildly successful: Breaking Views and Cricinfo.com (both bought out by mainstream media incidentally - you were debating whether it was an essential part of the machine...?). They were two ideas that served a dedicated audience and gave them something new - not everyone is going to have that great idea that's going to be a huge success.

Secondly, start-ups are just that. Start-ups. To be successful they take time and effort and aren't going to explode overnight. Friends of mine who work in start-up electronics firms can work on a project for a year or more before they see returns. Perhaps you're all being a bit impatient?

Jo, a great post and one I have been waiting to comment on for a a couple of days now. You have very eloquently expanded on what we discussed via twitter on Sunday afternoon.

I would love nothing more than to be part of a small 'cluster of startups' that provide journalistic services. I think that because journalism has only really ever had the one major funding model (advertising) it is much harder for potential 'journalist entrepreneurs' to envisage a small startup within the same space as the 'big boys', than perhaps in another industry.

Adam has been setting a great example with Studio Fu and there are also other interesting experiments such as Media Street's the Kings Road hyperlocal project - but more needs to be offered in the way of support.

Mentoring, co-working space and funding are all integral parts of the recipe required to encourage our young and upcoming journalists, but what I fear is is missing the most is the quality Adam refers to - the ability to fail.

Adam said "The people who will make it work, are the ones who will try regardless, fail..but keep on trying." He is so right - but it is the hardest part and a skill that our education system not only ignores, but actively discourages.

There are very few opportunities to fail as you progress through the British education system - maybe some reflection in a science project about why your hypothesis was wrong, but nothing that you really truly learn from.

We need to teach our up and coming journalists that it's ok to fail.

I noticed that Uclan introduced an enterprise module for third years today - a fantastic step in the right direction, but how long will it take to bear fruit?

"The people who will make it work, are the ones who will try regardless, fail..but keep on trying."

Agree totally with what your saying Adam.

You better than most know the risks involved in starting out on your own and being different from the crowd,just as Louise and myself are doing at Inside the M60.

Interesting point-how many of this year's stars will come to us and yourself for work experience,as opposed to ending up in the traditional pot?

T

I think the lure of the mainstream is down to, firstly, the appeal of working for a famous organisation, or in a famous building etc. But I also think there's the idea that a full time job has more security than doing something more enterprising, an idea the recession has repeatedly proven wrong.

So why aren't more people doing it? Well, as Nigel suggests, it's not something Britain traditionally promotes well (especially compared to the US, where there's the cliche of kids running lemonade stands).

But the real reason, speaking as someone who quit their full-time job to start a news business, is internal. Swimming against the tide is difficult, and it's not comfortable. If you want a roadmap to tell you exactly, step-by-step, how it'll work, forget it. If you want to know your idea will succeed before you begin, move along. If you want it to 'feel right' before you get going, you'll be waiting a long time.

The people who will make it work, are the ones who will try regardless, fail..but keep on trying.

Everyone who's left a comment so far, Joseph included, are clearly switched on to this idea, so all I'll say is: this is your opportunity to break away from the crowd. Nigel says the experiences of the Dave Lees, the Joanna Gearys and the Josh Hallidays are exceptions: they are, but they are repeatable exceptions. Their success came from embracing the new ideas before anyone else got their heads around them. For them, it was social media - for you, it could be entrepreneurship.

We are, afterall, only at the beginning...

First of all Joseph, what a great piece and discussion point.

This is a massive issue because if the climate isn't right for good journalism students to set up themselves in enterprises, then the industry is going to die, beacuse the innovation is not going to come from the traditional media.

It is such a shame that the really good students of the past few years have by and large ended up in the mainstream.

I don't necessarily blame the journalsim schools in the UK for forcing students into the job route. That, unfortnately maybe is the way they get measured in this performance driven society that we live in.

It's not just journalism and as I pointed out in my tweet yesterday, the UK has a very bad track record in encouraging innovation across many of its industry.

That is down to the fact that our financiers want instant returns and is going to be worse in future years as the banking industry tries to repair its errors of the last 25.

But the point is this - real entrepreneurs, no matter what industry they operate in take risks. Often that means failing, living on little for a long time and making their mistakes in public. Is that taught at any university? Probably not.

Some specific points - Shane,the traditional media ain't gonna change .Innovation only ever comes from the bottom up I am afraid and it rarely comes from inside either. Most people wont risk not paying the mortgage.

Daniel - "The media landscape does not need 1000s more people wanting the same old jobs. It needs 1000s more people starting 100s of projects." spot on

Matthew - It is a perception and unfortunately very few people reach those heights; the likes of Dave Lee, Ed Walker and Josh Halliday are the exceptions not the rules.

Most journalism grads still chase big media jobs because they see that as the quickest and surest way to make a living doing the thing they love. That may not actually be the case any more, but it's still the perception. Heading to London and working unpaid for x amount of time with the possibility, whether genuine or otherwise, of a regular salary somewhere down the line is still preferable to many, rather than trying a start-up with no real model to make it profitable enough to pay the rent. As you mention, most have no idea whether funding is available.

Perceived security is always a big factor when people are looking at routes to employment. The Telegraph Grad Scheme seems a safer bet than starting something new. Journalism schools are still orientated towards big media employers, perhaps because they're still catching up. In my experience journalism tutors are exclusively former staff journalists from print, TV or radio backgrounds.

I suspect the change will come from the graduates and students themselves. If motivated individuals or groups press on with decent, exciting start-ups, others will see the opportunities and maybe the support mechanisms will start to develop.

There needs to be a realignment of the media landscape as a whole. There's too much redundant news, and far too many non profitable legacy outlets banking on the increasingly unlikely possibility that one day they can put up a paywall and carry on as before but with revenue.

Increasingly, this is causing problems for anyone trying to innovate with journalism because the market is still so distorted by these legacy outlets with their outdated thinking and brittle attitudes to change.

That's a fair point. But thinking of the long-term, can a business survive solely on philanthropic investment? They'll need a client base, surely? I think that the biggest money would come from the corporate media, unless the start-up can make enough money directly from customers.

"The only problem I see is that this will require the mainstream, corporate media to survive, and to survive profitably.
The start-ups will need big media to sell work/expertise to, so they can survive as a business (unless their direct customers are paying, but will it be so niche that there isn’t a big enough market?)."

Shane, I disagree that start-ups will need mainstream media. They'll need investment for sure but this doesn't have to come from mainstream media. For example, Google's $2.7million journalism prize http://www.fastcompany.com/1731861/googles-journalism-prize-5-innovative-models

Bingo. The problem with journalism departments are their obsession with industry links.

Everything is aimed at making you employable but absolutely nothing is done to encourage people to become entrepreneurial. It's all about what looks good on your CV and what work placement you're doing.

I'd love at least a module on entrepreneurial journalism: encourage students to have ideas about what the media should be and how it can be shaped.

There's an obsession with many journalism students with getting into the industry. I think it's sad that what should be the new wave of new media journalists, are still obsessed with getting jobs in the mainstream media.

The media landscape does not need 1000s more people wanting the same old jobs. It needs 1000s more people starting 100s of projects.

Nice post.

I really like the idea of lots and lots of niche start-ups, producing content for news organisations who work as some sort of aggregator.

The only problem I see is that this will require the mainstream, corporate media to survive, and to survive profitably.

The start-ups will need big media to sell work/expertise to, so they can survive as a business (unless their direct customers are paying, but will it be so niche that there isn't a big enough market?).

In order for them (big media) to be interested in buying what you can offer, they'll have to be able to translate it into a profit. But if you're essentially doing what they're doing now (albeit more innovatively and creatively), where's the difference that means it'll make money for the media behemoths, and in turn you as a start-up?