For about twenty years now, I've been reading that print is dying. Classical television is supposed to be dying for roughly the same amount of time, radio has been declared dead several times over, and lately, even classic news websites are joining the queue for media funerals. If all the prognoses had come true, today we would probably have TikTok, Netflix, a few influencers, and a lot of empty office buildings from former publishers and TV stations.
But media have one peculiar characteristic. They refuse to die on schedule.
The current results of Mediaprojekt are a pretty good example of this. Almost three-quarters of people in the Czech Republic still read print media. Some segments are naturally declining, others are holding steady, and for economic titles, we even see growth. This is not a picture of a market that stopped in 1998. But it's certainly not the funeral procession we are sometimes served.
And I have exactly the same experience with television.
We've been hearing about the end of linear television for years. Yet, people continue to watch TV, TV content continues to work, and TV advertising is still being sold. It's just that alongside traditional broadcasting, ten other ways have emerged to reach the same viewer. HbbTV, streaming, OTT, YouTube, social networks, mobile applications, or smart TVs. And in a few years, something that we can't even properly name today will probably be added.
The battle of platforms may not exist at all
We often discuss which platform will win. Whether linear TV or streaming. Print or the internet. Radio or podcasts. But perhaps no such battle actually exists.
There's just a person who wants content.
In the morning, they pick up their phone, listen to the radio on the way to work, open several websites during the day, watch TV or streaming in the evening, and might even buy a magazine on the weekend. And they have no idea that, according to our media categories, they have changed their identity several times during a single day from an online user to a listener, TV viewer, and reader.
Because they don't care at all. And perhaps we shouldn't either.
The biggest risk is not operating a traditional medium. The biggest risk is operating only one medium in one way.
If someone today publishes a magazine and their only product is a printed magazine, I think they have a problem. Not because paper has no future. But because they are not leveraging the enormous value they already hold – a brand, content, editorial team, contacts, industry knowledge, and above all, an audience.
Why should a specialized magazine be only a magazine?
It can have a quality website. It can make videos. Podcasts. Newsletters. Conferences. Data services. Special projects. Social networks. Even its own TV show. And yet, it can still print a magazine once a month that someone will enjoy holding. In fact, I would say that precisely because of this, the magazine can survive much longer.
One report doesn't have to be just a report at 6:30 PM
If today you operate a television station and you only consider what will be on at eight in the evening, you are voluntarily closing most of the doors that technological development has opened for you.
One report can be part of a TV broadcast. It gets a second life on the web. A shorter version can work on social networks. A vertical cut can appeal to a completely different audience. An interview can exist as a podcast. The archive can be available via HbbTV or OTT. And individual pieces of information from it can continue to live in other formats.
Suddenly, you're not producing one report for one broadcast hour. You're producing content.
And that, I believe, is a substantially more important change than all the debates about whether “television will survive the internet.” Above all, those who understand that distribution is no longer the goal will survive. It's a tool.
The boundaries between media are becoming increasingly absurd
Television can distribute radio. Radio can produce video. A website can have its own linear stream. A print title can be a producer of television content. And content originally produced for television may eventually find its largest audience somewhere else entirely.
Just a few years ago, we would have needed several separate companies for this. Today, one well-functioning newsroom and technology that can get its work to various places is often enough.
And this, I believe, is where the true transformation of media lies. Not in discarding old media and pretending that everything began with the advent of social networks. But in ceasing to think like owners of individual distribution channels and beginning to think as content producers and brand owners.
Because a brand can outlive technology. A format can outlive a distribution platform. And quality content can travel practically anywhere.
Of course, this doesn't mean everything will grow. It won't. Some magazines will close. Some TV stations will close. Some radio stations will close, and very likely many current websites will also close. But this has always happened in the media. I just wouldn't automatically equate their end with the end of the medium itself.
When a bad restaurant closes, we also don't write analyses about the definitive end of dining.
Today, more paths lead to the same person
That's why I enjoy observing numbers like the current Mediaprojekt. Not because they prove that nothing is changing. Quite the opposite. A huge amount is changing. Only the change is not as simple as it is sometimes told.
It's not a story where the internet killed print, Netflix killed TV, and Spotify killed radio. It's a story about many more paths leading to the same person today.
And the task for us, who own, manage, or create media, is not, in my opinion, to decide which of these paths is the only correct one. Our task is to be on as many of them as possible. Reasonably. Effectively. And ideally, so that we don't have to produce everything from scratch on each one.
That's why today I believe much less in dividing media into old and new. Rather, I believe in media that can adapt, and those that wait for the world to adapt to them. The latter group will have a significantly harder time.
So, the next time I see a headline somewhere that print is dying, I'll probably read it. Maybe online. And if it's really good, maybe I'll watch something about it on TV in the evening.
And that, in essence, is the whole media paradox in a nutshell.
The commentary originally appeared on pavelhajek.com.