Marcia Parker, the West Coast editorial director of Aol/Patch Media, came to speak in last week’s “Must See Monday” series at Arizona State University’s Cronkite school. She was there to discuss hyperlocal content in a digital world, which essentially sums up the endeavors of Patch, a multi-million-dollar venture by Aol to bring hyperlocal news sites to hundreds of communities across the United States.
This wasn’t my first experience with Patch. That came when I talked with Nancy Hanus, the regional editor of Michigan’s metro Detroit Patch sites, this past summer about the possibility of becoming a local editor. We talked a lot about philosophies of digital journalism in comparison to newspapers (including the overlap), and what Patch was striving to do in each community.
While I ended up at the Arizona Republic instead, I was still intrigued by Patch’s effort, particularly in the new-media efforts prominently displayed on each site (social media, geolocation, etc.).
Still, in watching and reading about Patch’s progress, there are important lessons to be learned in the big picture from what I still consider to be a project. After all, Patch has only reached 18 states so far (not including D.C.). Aol doesn’t expect Patch to contribute to its profitability until this year. And we’ve still yet to see how Aol’s purchase of the Huffington Post will affect Patch. So judging whether this venture is a success or a failure is moot at this point. But in the meantime, there are ideas and warnings to take from Patch.
Here are some of my thoughts:
What I like about Patch
Emphasis on small-community news. I may have mentioned it before, but I am a huge advocate for small-community news. It is one of the most underrated and unappreciated parts of my craft. I constantly read about the endeavors of big-market publications and news media outlets such as The New York Times, The Seattle Times and the like — but I never read about what small community news outlets are doing.
Is that because many of them lack money, resources and manpower? Probably. But it makes you wonder how much those troubles are coming at the expense of the people. Are public officials in these small towns being held accountable? Are we effectively analyzing government cash flow and the state of the economy? In a way, Patch helps this by bringing visibility to these communities, many of which had none in the first place.
The goal of being an engagement hub, not just a news source. Parker mentioned during Monday’s presentation that Patch’s goal wasn’t just to bring news to small communities. Each site is trying to be a hub of information, resources and engagement. For example, at the top of each Patch site, you have the choice of viewing a comprehensive business directory, an interactive schedule of events, volunteer opportunities in your community and even questions and answers from other community members.
I’m particularly intrigued by the engagement part rather than the directory (more on that in a bit) — while small community members do interact through platforms such as Facebook, many need a centralized forum for discussion on important public issues. Patch can provide that.
A goal of transparency. According to Parker, each Patch site’s local editor is required to go out and meet people in the community through activities such as meetups, coffee breaks, etc. How many editors in the mainstream media have that requirement? And how many of them actually do it?
The ivory-tower mentality is broken down here and it makes community coverage that much more effective because it keeps the public interested and informed. All editors and reporters in every journalistic entity need to be easily accessible by the public, period.
Geolocation. Maps, such as the one above. Why aren’t more news sites using these?
Why I’m skeptical about Patch
Poor branding. This is not a knock on the name “Patch,” or the logo, color scheme or anything of that nature. It’s the overall presentation of Aol’s news venture, which essentially brings the Patch name to hundreds of communities around the country. Although I admit it’s not an equal comparison, imagine if Gannett forced every one of its dozens of newspapers to be renamed “*City* Gannett” and to operate the same exact template of a website and newspaper. There’s no personal identity in that!
No community, big or small, is the same. Their news entities shouldn’t be, either. The goal of a small community news outlet should be to maintain a maximal connection with its public arena, and that’s virtually impossible when your news outlet hangs under the umbrella of a much larger corporation. The name “Patch” on each site only makes it worse.
Oversaturating the flow of information. Piggybacking off of Lauren Rabaino’s post on the oversaturation of news (which you should read, by the way), I can’t help but feel like Patch is bringing nothing new to the table for each community outside of its news front.
I pointed out the comprehensive business directory earlier — while it is nice to neatly organize a community’s array of businesses into one spot and add a social media component, I can still find more information on most of these businesses through Google’s semantic web, or even the Yellow Pages. So why waste labor building all of it again? “Stick to what you do best… and link to the rest.”
Will it really make money? I mentioned earlier that Aol doesn’t plan on making profits from Patch until this year. Problem is, those profits hinge on the collective effort of hundreds of Patch sites. How many of them are effectively covering their communities and generating enough money through advertising, classifieds and the like? I’m not doubting that some are doing well but, there are so many moving pieces in the equation, it doesn’t matter how well a handful of Patch sites are doing.
Conclusion
The future of news is hyperlocal and personalized. It starts with news from your immediate surroundings. And the typical United States community, from the major metropolitan suburb to the town by the rural countryside, doesn’t receive enough visibility. Small community newspapers are suffering worse than their metropolitan counterparts, if not already closed down. It’s time to bring the news to these communities.
That’s where Patch comes in. For now.
I stated in a tweet following Parker’s presentation that while I’m still skeptical about some things, particularly with the marketing and business model, Patch is still employing techniques that should be followed in the mainstream media. Is Patch the final answer to what journalism needs? Probably not.
But one thing that can’t be ignored: It’s trying something new. It’s experimenting. There are lessons we need to take from that.
Posted by Brian Manzullo at February 20, 2011
Journalism