Questions for “Multi-Local” News—And the Need for Clear Answers
An emerging trend requires choices by publishers on key questions
Welcome to Second Rough Draft, a newsletter about journalism in our time, how it (often its business) is evolving, and the challenges it faces.
One of the emerging trends in American journalism is an effort to establish what are being called “multi-local” outlets, digital newsrooms covering different communities but having a common corporate parent and gaining efficiencies through shared services. Of course, this is really a new twist on the old—and increasingly faltering—idea of chains of local newspapers.
A variety of approaches
But while the chain newspapers all largely followed a similar model, there are significant differences between the approaches of the new “multi-locals,” and this week I want to take a closer look at some of the key questions raised by these differences. For those pondering this approach to local journalism, or trying to manage it, the varying models present a range of issues:
A common approach or not? In the traditional newspaper chains, it was recognized, up to a point, that every city is different, but the overall take on covering one place and another were similar. The atomic unit of the chain was a city newspaper, and the larger chains grouped these in regions for managerial purposes. In the new models, such a pyramid structure of similar building blocks isn’t universal. One of the most prominent multi-locals, Deep South Today, for instance, began with an outlet, Mississippi Today, focused on statewide issues, but in 2022 launched Verite, a city effort in another state (New Orleans, Louisiana) that was initially positioned as serving underrepresented communities but has subsequently broadened its target.
One brand or many? The newspaper chains were mostly built by an ever-shifting series of acquisitions and divestitures, and therefore did not have the opportunity, in most cases, to coordinate their branding. The newer entrants, however, have a choice, and they are not all making it the same way.
In Ohio, Signal started in Cleveland but with the announced intent of largely replicating the old chain model in one state. Signal Cleveland was followed by Signal Akron, and Signal Cincinnati is coming soon. Each of their local reports is supplemented by Signal Statewide. Earlier, the parent of Berkeleyside in California, Cityside, expanded with The Oaklandside and more recently Richmondside. Former newspaper analyst Ken Doctor, one of the most astute observers of the industry for decades now, has entered the fray with Lookout Santa Cruz (which won a Pulitzer Prize in its third year of reporting!), and now Lookout Eugene-Springfield (Oregon).
Deep South Today made a different branding choice, emphasizing uniqueness rather than commonality. The Texas Tribune, in looking to build out a new set of local ostensibly “independent” affiliates, has also opted for multiple brands, first starting up Waco Bridge and recently acquiring the Austin Monitor, while discussing reviving some aspects of the failed Houston Landing.
How to mesh state and local outlets? The Tribune and its peers face a further question beyond branding. Having begun with a statewide outlet, and now wishing to expand into multi-local journalism, what is the best course?: Should they assemble a collection of seemingly free-standing local outlets (as the Tribune is doing), establish what the Colorado Sun is calling “regional hubs,” or begin opening local bureaus, as Mississippi Today is doing, beginning in the state capital of Jackson, and as Spotlight PA has done, first in State College, home of Penn State, more recently in Berks County and soon perhaps in the Lehigh Valley. These are critical editorial distinctions.
Meanwhile, the Salt Lake Tribune, having converted to a nonprofit as a leading outlet in Utah’s dominant city, seems to be moving to create a new version of the old chains through acquisitions, with the first having come in Moab in 2023, and with funding from the Knight Growth Challenge and the American Journalism Project perhaps seeding more.
How much, if any, shared editorial content? In all of these various approaches, common business functions, such as finance and HR, can be and are shared. This is a meaningful efficiency. In contemporary publishing, a shared tech stack can also yield important savings and greater sophistication, while seamlessly compatible technology is imperative.
But much more is possible, and that’s where harder choices arise. Sharing editorial content and product design can save lots of money. But it also, by definition, makes different news products more homogenous, and implicitly if not explicitly represents a judgment that the news needs of different communities at least overlap. Do they? A single brand is easier (and cheaper) to build, but may also be seen to reflect statewide dominance of institutions seeking to be considered local. These are critical decisions for each multi-local player to make. As I hope you can see from the examples already laid out, different choices are being made on such questions in different places.
Is advertising part of the appeal? Potential gains in the multi-local realm aren’t limited to the expense side of the accounting ledger. It may be possible to use the greater scale of these new networks to make a more effective pitch to advertisers. In this arena, especially, the answers to the questions I have posed above interact. Group ad sales, for instance, are almost certainly aided by common branding. But is distinctive local branding more trustworthy? Conversely, advertisers are inhibited by dissimilar business and editorial models. They think in terms of audiences. The more coherent and aggregated your audience appears to be, the more compelling the advertising appeal; the more variant, the harder the sale.
What of national philanthropy? One of the selling points of the new multi-locals is that they may be more attractive to national philanthropic investment. Whether or not this should be the case (or is a reflection of a bit of foundation lassitude), there seems to be some evidence that it’s working. But meaningful newsroom funding in any locale should remain rooted there. If that is to be true, local fundraising needs to remain part of the mix.
Decisions to be made
Overall, this week I have done more posing of questions and less answering of them than is my wont. That has been intentional. In the emerging trend toward multi-local publishing my big point is not that I know the answers everywhere, but that I think the questions require thoughtful and clear answers. It may well be that too much of the activity so far on the new multi-local initiatives has been opportunistic, and perhaps excessively funder-driven. Whether or not that is the case, there are important choices to be made here, and they need to be made with intention and care.