Of course, the only place these claims are true is in the salesman's patter. The reality, Ill said, is that several steps are involved, each with its own considerations.

The first two -- getting data out of the classified front-end, then converting them into a standard format -- are a lot easier said than done. The final two steps -- adding HTML and a search interface -- are significantly easier, but not an automatic given either.

Roddy de la Garza, chief marketing officer of the on-line classifieds service bureau AdOne Classified Network of New York, talked about some of his company's successful partnerships with newspapers. He began, though, by noting that the real problem with on-line classifieds is that newspapers apply the known print responses to a new medium, without really examining the issues.

Getting the ads out of the legacy system is just the start, he said. Knowing what to do next is where it gets tricky.

More for less, faster
After lunch, Howard Finberg, director of information technology at Arizona's Phoenix Newspapers Inc., talked about the new paradigm of buying and installing a system. His goals: doing more with less, and doing more faster.

He used the ongoing experience of his own papers, the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette, as an example of how the processes need to change to reflect a new reality.

"Technology should free people, not limit what we do," he said.

In a brief chronology, Finberg reminded the audience that in the mid-'70s and early '80s, electronic paste-up was all the rage. The computer replaced the X-Acto knife, but workflow stayed pretty much the same.

In the late '80s through the early '90s, Phoenix Newspapers, like others, was faced with having to replace aging systems. Phoenix was in a slightly different situation, though, as it had embraced full-page pagination in 1986. It was clear that a replacement plan was in order -- and that the replacement needed to be not merely evolutionary, but truly evolutionary, Finberg said.

In the end, Phoenix settled on a product from CCI Europe of Marietta, Ga., but it wasn't the product that signified the paradigm shift -- it was how the process of buying and installing the system was handled.

In 1991, Phoenix started looking for a publication database, something that would allow for collaborative sharing of information across many departments. In its implementation, this system would be "owned" by both technology and the system users.

Unlike selection of previous systems, this time the users -- from news, production, library and advertising -- would have a say in which system got the thumbs-up.

Finberg pointed to three changes that had to happen for the newspaper to select a new system for a new era.

First, the paper made a concerted effort to avoid knowledge concentration. In the typical paper, people do their tasks with virtually no cross-training.

The result is the scenario in which Joe Guru gets hit by a truck while crossing the street, or decides to go raise llamas in Montana: All of a sudden, no one can produce headers from the system because all the typeset-header knowledge had been concentrated in Joe's head.

During Phoenix Newspapers' installation, there is a commitment to cross-training. Everyone knows about the system; it isn't one person's little secret.

Second was a commitment to build consensus and to shape a new attitude, that everyone was working for the same company. In both the selection and implementation process, the Phoenix team worked hard to avoid the classic production vs. editorial vs. advertising imbroglio. Instead, the system was viewed as a newspaper-wide solution, from which everyone benefited.

Third was a commitment to measured and accurate communication. At the most basic level was a newsletter; at a more complex level, the company used Lotus Notes and e-mail to take input, give feedback, and keep everyone involved and bought in to the process. Participation was encouraged and even expected, and helped advance the notion that the system belongs to everyone.

Vendors' view
The day's final session brought together a panel of newspaper suppliers to answer the oft-asked question of newspapers everywhere: Why haven't suppliers delivered what we need?

Speaking were Al Edwards, president of Autologic Information International of Thousand Oaks, Calif.; Marlow Einlund, president/CEO of Sysdeco Media Group of Bedford, Mass.; Bernard Grinberg, managing director Cybergraphic Systems of Burlington, Mass., and Australia; Dennis McGuire, president of Managing Editor Inc. of Jenkintown, Pa., and Frank Washington, CEO of System Integrators Inc. of Sacramento, Calif.

The executives' responses ranged from "fear," to faulting newspapers for a lack of commitment, to publishers' inability to clarify just what it is they do want. The suppliers said they feel like they are trying to hit a demanding, moving target that is unwilling to make a commitment upfront.

"Newspapers want services for nothing," noted Einlund, whose Sysdeco owns the remains of Atex Publishing Systems Corp.

Edwards, who has been involved with many major systems suppliers over the years, noted that suppliers must cope with a seven-year cycle. All get caught in the trap of an industry that asks for the next generation of system -- while simultaneously wanting unique individual needs met immediately.

And, by the way, he pointed out, they don't want to buy something until it's been proven by someone else.

Even the hardware profits no longer go to the system suppliers, as everyone has moved to UNIX, PC or Macintosh platforms and the newspapers prefer to buy these generic machines directly. This all combines to make a difficult business model, Edwards said.

The cost of selling to the newspaper industry is extremely high, the suppliers agreed, as the panel cited the multiday dog-and-pony shows ("making the monkey dance," McGuire called it) that newspapers expect -- and which detract from development resources.

Which is why, the panelists agreed, their respective companies were broadening their products beyond newspapers, and looking to other markets to stay in business.

Ongoing R&D funding is important, and the newspaper industry isn't one that supports it. The bottom line from the suppliers was: We aren't going away, but we can't afford to serve just newspapers.

In toto
The day brought a telling mix of viewpoints from the newspaper industry. Any of the session topics alone could easily have become a day-long session, but the balance helped put the diverse needs within each paper into focus.

That, perhaps, is the one message to take away from this event: Newspapers, more than any other industry, hold a set of competing technological, system and production needs.

Historically, those needs have been segmented into "business systems," "advertising systems," "classified systems," "production systems" and "editorial systems," but the world has changed.

Maybe it is time -- for the sake of our sanity, our budgets and our suppliers -- to focus on ways the newspaper as a whole can work together, whether we are producing a print daily, an on-line service or a classified ad section.

To do so would change the paradigms we know. But then, they are changing around us nonetheless.

-- Teresa A. Martin

AdOne Classified Network,
(212) 431-3303;
Autologic Information International Inc.,
(805) 498-9611;
CCI Europe Inc.,
(770) 419-1588,
e-mail: jt@cci.dk;
Cybergraphic Inc.,
(617) 221-0077,
e-mail: 0004484910@mcimail.com;
InfiNet,
(804) 628-1020;
KOZ Inc.,
(919) 832-8926;
Managing Editor Inc.,
(215) 886-5662;
Sysdeco Media Group,
(617) 275-2323;
System Integrators Inc.,
(916) 929-9481,
e-mail: sii@sii.com.

From THE COLE PAPERS, October 1996, Copyright © 1996, All Rights Reserved.