Old Dogs New Tricks and Crappy Editorial Systems

​”You can’t fix what you won’t admit is wrong.” says Digital First Media CEO John Paton of the newspaper industry. That much needed tough love applies to the newspaper industry’s struggle with legacy editorial systems. (The title of this post is inspired by the title of of a recent talk by Paton.)

Newspaper executives have been sold on content hub solutions by the “old dogs” of news industry technology — the print editorial system vendors — whose “new tricks” are failing because they are implementing clouds solutions with desktop software architecture.

​Executives at news companies are beginning to realize, to their dismay, that although these print editorial system vendors have slick brochures, their cloud content hub solutions are mostly “smoke and mirrors” (to quote an executive).

News executives bought into these print-CMSs-in-cloud-clothing because neither they nor their IT executives have little basis to understand why the desktop editorial software they have used for so many years can’t simply be put into the cloud. Creating a dynamic network across newsrooms requires an entirely different software architecture, which legacy editorial system vendors could only create by completely rewriting their software from scratch… which none of them has done.

​The first step for news executives to admitting that they have a serious technology problem is understanding why the technology they have is wrong. News executives previously didn’t have to understand much about technology, but as Silicon Valley has driven the convergence of media and technology at an accelerating rate, all media companies must be as savvy about technology as they are about content.

​A simple way to understand why legacy editorial system vendors can’t deliver cloud content solutions is to draw an analogy to office productivity software. Imagine if Microsoft took the desktop version of Office — Word, Excel, PowerPoint — and put it on server. Would that be the equivalent of Google Apps, a web application designed from the core to enable collaboration in the cloud?

Of course not. In fact, Microsoft, with its massive development resources, only released a cloud version of Office last year — that’s how hard it is and how long it takes to re-architect desktop software for the cloud. Yet legacy print CMS vendors have been selling cloud content hubs for years — how much re-architecting do you think they did?

Based on what we’ve heard about the struggles that news companies have had with these legacy print CMS content hubs — even just keeping them from crashing constantly — not very much re-architecting at all.

Content management in the cloud, connecting disparate systems, workflows, content formats and types, is a complex problem — one that is too often beyond software not originally designed to solve it.

To make matters worse, implementing a single CMS that promises to do everything has proven to be a disastrous decision. But the alternative — a network that connects legacy and new systems with a flexible cloud-native architecture — was not a solution the old dogs could deliver.

As Paton said, “I meant what I said earlier when I used the word struggle.”

News companies have invested millions of dollars in “crappy” hacked technology with fundamentally bad architecture. How hard do you think it is for news executive to admit that they have a fundamental problem?

Very.

But to quote Paton again:

“We ignore this at the risk of killing our business but worse we ignore it when the solution to our future is sitting under our noses if… we would only let go of the past and embrace the future.”

Couldn’t have said it better. The news industry needs Paton-like truth telling about their core content technology. And the solutions are right under the industry’s nose — content platforms architected from the ground up to bring the news industry into the cloud, to create dynamic networks that turn siloed newsrooms into a fully integrated news operation.

Unfortunately, the politics of bad technology decisions have left some of the largest news company scrambling to overcome the failings of “smoke and mirrors” products. But even these problems can be overcome with properly architected technology — not by abandoning failed platforms, but by filling in the gaps.

The news industry is beginning to embrace Jon Paton’s tough message about what’s broken and how to fix it. Hopefully, they will soon begin to embrace his message as it applies to broken content management technology.

6 thoughts on “Old Dogs New Tricks and Crappy Editorial Systems”

  1. That’s right on the mark, Scott. If the process has changed, then the software to create it needs to be radically different. In fact, start by not assuming their is a single cohesive end product at all. Perhaps it is more like re-directing existing rivers and streams of information flow that is how a journalist often works in the future. But you can go pretty far using tools out there, and will need to incorporate third party tools.  It’s impossible to do all the innovation within one piece of software. And yes, if you just spent a million bucks last year on an out-dated system, it’s unlikely that you will admit it’s not the right tool this year. Hopefully, next year. ; )

  2. I totally agree that things are broken and I keep hoping some vendor will come out with a solution that makes sense in terms of truly building with digital-first workflow in mind. That said, I must point something out, though. I’m a big fan of John Paton and what he’s advocated for this industry, but Paton’s JRC also recently opted to go with Saxotech’s systems for their publications (http://www.newsandtech.com/dateline/article_c45b7156-1cec-11e0-8ebc-001cc4c03286.html). We use Saxo Editorial and used to use the Online product. I know they’re migrating toward the cloud, but let’s face it: it’s an expensive old school “legacy” solution. It is “big iron.” Just sayin’.

  3. Nonsense. No supporting specifics. Bears no resemblance to the reality with which I’m personally familiar. And whose hidden, competing agenda does this oh-so-trendy rhetoric support? I’m a newspaper systems expert, working daily with one of the industry’s best publishing system vendors. My newspaper’s system uses advanced XML protocols to integrate with our progressive, open-source web CMS. This “legacy” system is extremely stable  with excellent support and regular updates.

  4. John, the workflow that you have, i.e. create content in the print CMS, then send to the web, is not what I’m talking about here.  That workflow has been around for years.  I’m talking about true digital-first workflows, where content is posted to the web first, then flowed back into the print CMS, without copying/pasting or other time-wasting inefficiencies.  And I’m talking about connecting many newsrooms with disparate systems and workflows into an efficient and scalable internal content network (where your legacy vendor has had some notable failures — Google their new product name and you’ll find some examples).  And I’m talking about seamlessly integrating content from outside the newsroom from a range of new sources to create new digital products.

  5. “Of course not. In fact, Microsoft, with its massive development resources, only released a cloud version of Office last year — that’s how hard it is and how long it takes to re-architect desktop software for the cloud. Yet legacy print CMS vendors have been selling cloud content hubs for years — how much re-architecting do you think they did?”

    From what I’ve seen they are using a lot of virtual machine software to create bridges to old server systems instead of writing new code with new architectures. It sometimes looks like a patchwork quilt with multiple interfaces sometimes appearing as if you’re using Windoze 98.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>