Editorial measurement.

Two words that divide our industry like no others.

Across America, as editors and publishers tear open their copies of Newspapers & Technology and devour its content, our leaders are split into two equally hyperventilating camps of disbelief as their bloodshot eyes alight upon this short benign phrase.

In one camp there is total disbelief that so little is being done to measure the output of our journalists in terms of quantity and quality.

In the other there is utter disdain that anyone could associate the clinical notion of measurement with the art - or is it magic? - of journalism.

If you think opinions differ in the United States on this issue, then travel abroad my friends.

Two years ago, I conducted a worldwide study for WAN that examined the subject of editorial measurement.

Positive results

The conclusion? Journalists and newsrooms could be measured easily. Moreover, the process of introducing such measures not only resulted in better newspapers produced more inexpensively, but also led to more motivated, better-directed staff.

The report identified four forms of measurement:

*Effectiveness - This relates to how well the newspaper does its job, from the perspective of its readers. Research can be used to measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of competitors, track readership by page, topic and even writer, determine which content should be expanded and what can be removed. Newspapers as distinct as those produced in Argentina and South Africa are tracking their readers’ interests, reading behavior and criticisms on a regular basis. Research works, and in every case I have come across the benefits it yields - whether it’s improving product or cutting costs associated with unpopular content - greatly exceed the cost.

*Efficiency - Virtually every newspaper can improve its workflow - either by helping staff work together more efficiently, by identifying steps that can be eliminated, or by employing tools that track workflow and thus allow managers to unearth points of duplication or problem areas. In truth, a common frustration among journalists lies in unresolved inefficiencies. While journalists, as with most working people, are rightly nervous about processes that track their working patterns, they are invariably pleased when their lives are made easier or when workflow obstacles are removed.

*Economy - The third issue lies in finding cost savings. Often these are inflicted because of a need to increase profits, but more and more newspapers are trying to trim production costs in order to invest in better content.

*Enterprise - The final factor is what I refer to as enterprise, namely how well the newspaper realizes its objectives - invariably through the quality of its management and their communication.

I employ a couple of techniques that measure how realistically a newspaper is tuned into its marketplace.

These techniques often illustrate a great discrepancy among journalists regarding what their newspaper stands for. Their perceptions about what people read often differ greatly from what readers actually read.

Sending out questionnaires

One technique, a tool I particularly favor but one that editors seem reluctant to introduce, is to send a short questionnaire to every person who appears in a newspaper story.

The questionnaire simply asks those people if facts were correct, if their interpretation was fair and whether there is any more to the story to be told.

The benefits are enormous.

First, it sends a strong signal to everyone that the newspaper is passionate about accuracy. It lets everyone feel they have a right to reply. It quickly weeds out any reporter who requires training.

In addition, my experience suggests of the replies received, almost one in every three result in further investigation or to another story.

To make this approach successful, it’s important that everyone in the newsroom is heading in the same direction.

Success also depends on appropriate appraisals. Many journalist appraisals simply follow those used across the newspaper organization.

But the measures outlined above can be drawn together to tailor accurate, useable and motivating appraisals for every person in the newsroom.

Want feedback

Journalists, like everyone else at work, appreciate an annual, formal update on their performance and an indication where their future lies and how they can improve. Introducing measurements such as these can radically improve the process.

In the last two years, I have realized that the controversy surrounding editorial measurement relates in fact to issues of change management and - ultimately - diversification.

Of course, journalists are right to defend their positions, to fight for every job, to aspire to better standards, better enquiry, more creativity and more depth.

But in the majority of cases, the quest for better performance through measurement is interpreted as a threat to quality.

This reluctance by journalists to adopt more modern working practices is counter-productive because it is effectively stopping our industry from progressing.

As the industry faces increased pressures to reduce costs and to move into other distribution channels, it is vital that we find better ways to work and to measure ourselves.

By adopting better working practice and demonstrating a willingness to be measured and to change, we can expand our newspapers and our businesses.

But to do that, we must eliminate the barrier that now exists from those determined to inhibit modern working practices and thus restrict management’s ability to measure effectiveness, efficiency and economics.

Jim Chisholm is a consultant and strategy advisor to the World Association of Newspapers and director of the association’s Shaping the Future of the Newspaper project, which looks at new developments in the newspaper industry. He can be reached via e-mail at jim.chisholm@futureofthenewspaper.com. More information about the project is available at www.futureofthenewspaper.com.