Alan M Dransfield

I’ve made regular use of my information querying rights (ever since my unlawful ban was lifted) and some of my detailed requests are now being branded “vexatious”. It’s happened 3 times in the last month or so.
The delicate flowers have also branded me and the tone of my requests as “obsessive”, “hectoring”, “haranguing” and “offensive”.

…..All this is courtesy of the only UK council to be monitored between January and March this year, and the most vexatious entity I’ve ever had the misfortune to come across, my local authority, scandal-ridden, disabled people abusing, proven corporate bully, “where the abnormal has become normal”, basket case, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

Of course, Wirral are not alone and there are a good few cowboy data controllers out there; the ICO (like the Local Government Ombudsman, packed with ex-council staff) and First Tier Tribunal are frankly useless, and we need to push for a stronger set of information and data laws. In fact, something that lives up to the name, “Freedom of Information”. This doesn’t.

And here on Wirral, we’ve never had anything near that.

Why wouldn’t you make the Variety Pack as attractive as possible when it still makes a lot of money, especially when you have accurate data about what people want to read? Make it as compelling a lifestyle purchase as possible, by using the newish live data available, has to be part of the mix.

But I agree it’s not the whole future by any stretch. Multiple niches – providing depth, insight and stuff people feel is useful therefore essential – is another important part (and the thinking behind Business Daily). Distribution is critical, and that’s never been easier if done correctly (ie not treating social media as a one-way marketing tool or some sort of instant news bill), but I also think there is merit in the Destination approach as well. You talk about trust, and regional brands still have that in abundance – or at worst, the goodwill of others to give brands a second chance. I’ve seen that many times working with hyperlocal news providers. Do what you do best, link to the rest … but also ask ‘what could we be best at if we gave it a go.’ I think that line of thinking throws up some very surprising answers.

I’ve tweaked the Cornflakes thing to over-emphasise the free point. I think it still holds water.

Having said that, like you, I think it is fatuous to argue that the regional press has damaged itself by giving away its content. It’s where we are and it’s unlikely that anybody could have introduced a paywall earlier in the transition from an analogue world.

However, I do believe that the internet has ‘killed’ the regional press. Or, more accurately, I believe that it is killing the regional press in as much as the regional press is seen as a newspaper company or, even, a digital company which attempts to replicate online what it has traditionally done in print.

The theme of much of what I write is that the internet has completely destroyed the business model of local newspaper companies – you can no longer expect classified advertising (online or in print) to pay for the journalism needed to sustain the current model.

It’s not going to happen in print because classified works better online. It’s as simple as that. No gnashing of teeth or blaming of management is going to change the fact that if you are looking for a job (or a car, or a house), it is easier and more convenient online than it is in print (look at Autotrader: http://bit.ly/11qbhHb).

It’s not going to happen online because the journalism costs simply eat away at the profit that could be made through classified. Look at what my old employer, DMGT, did: it put the profitable classified advertising into completely separate companies and then sold off the newspapers, keeping the main revenue drivers within DMGT.

Where I should probably have been clearer in my own blog post is that I think that paywalls and much higher print cover prices only really apply to what you call the variety pack. In your post you say: ‘The challenge for the regional Press – indeed, all printed press – is to make the Variety Pack attractive enough to make people want to continue buying it.’

As I said in my post, if you continue down that road (which is what I think all the major publishers are doing), you are destined to be a very small business, employing very few journalists and, eventually, with so little profit that you are not attractive to the current owners.

It’s clear that the current owners think otherwise – they appear to agree that each newspaper will shrink, but they argue that the only way to keep them afloat will be further consolidation of ownership (ie the newspapers need to be owned by even fewer, bigger companies so that even more back-end costs can be taken out).

I think there is another way and I’m acutely aware that I haven’t written enough about it, leaving myself open to the accusation of being a doomsayer.

I am currently working on a piece to help rectify that. The phrases underpinning my thoughts are: Multiple niches, not one generalist; Distributed, not a destination; Solving problems, not just reporting; Transaction-based, not ad supported; Paid for and free, depending on platform and value; In the real world as well as online; Do what you do best, link to the rest; Enabling, not controlling; Trusted; Underpinned by high quality journalism and real-life expertise; Freelance model?

I think there are some fantastic (very profitable) examples out there, but, sadly, not in the regional press – and I don’t see that changing while you think your mission is to make the variety pack as attractive as possible.

To do so would reward the villains and hand ‘carte blanche’ across to proven scoundrels. Wirral are currently the only local authority being monitored by the ICO.

Hopefully bad or failing data controllers’ track records will be taken into account before we start weakening the public’s rights under Article 10 of the HRA.