Cross-posted from InterstateQ.com

Gay journo Michael Lavers, national news editor for Edge Media Network, took to discussing the state of LGBT print media in the Village Voice‘s annual “Queer Issue” this week.

His piece, titled “Gay Print Media on the Wane,” rehashes the demise of Window Media — once the nation’s largest LGBT newspaper company — and delves into the possible future of gay journalism.

In the story, Lavers writes that the rise of digital media has given traditional print media a run for its money. No doubt there. He also details some specific challenges to gay media and proclaims some new “kings of the forest” (he calls them the “new gay press establishment”) in the process.

Lavers writes:

The rise of the digital gay press comes down to access to information  and how fast a blogger or news site can post it. Towleroad, Pam’s House  Blend, and other blogs use social networking to report on relevant  legislative votes and to file on-the-scene reports from hate-crime  vigils and street protests, as well as scoops like Queerty‘s  uncovering Ricky Martin‘s  coming out-via Twitter,  of course. Last December, I was able to report on the New York State  Senate’s vote on gay marriage from my apartment in Brooklyn via a live  stream of the proceedings in Albany,  as well as texting, Tweets, and instant messages from activists inside  the Senate chamber.

Social networking has become an increasingly important organizing  tool, supplanting the way “Gay, Inc.”-the pejorative for the big  national organizations-used to marshal the troops. When California  voters passed Proposition 8 banning gay marriage, and again immediately after the state’s Supreme  Court upheld it, young activists across the country took to Facebook and formed huge flash marches.

With print publications falling like so many dead trees, bloggers and  new, online-only news networks like Edge Media Network and Britain’s  Pink News are fast becoming the new gay press establishment. Making  things even harder for gay media-new and old-is the not-unpleasant  problem of continuous and thorough examination of LGBT issues in big  media like The New York Times, the Washington  Post, and the Voice. Their coverage threatens to make  already-threatened gay community weeklies, with their much more limited  resources, redundant. Consider this: The photo that caught notorious  professional homophobe George  Alan Rekers with a male escort at an airport two months ago wasn’t  taken for a gay paper, but for the Voice‘s sister paper, Miami  New Times.

Lavers, who I’ve met and whose company I’ve thoroughly enjoyed, hits on some valid points. Among them:

1. It is becoming increasingly difficult for traditional news publishing companies to compete against digital media news producers, such as bloggers and online-only publications.
2. Social media and networking are king: News stories contained in print can’t compete against real-time “breaking news.” Newspapers relying first or primarily on print as a means of distributing news certainly don’t have the ability to distribute their stories as far and as wide as is possible with social media like Twitter and Facebook.
3. Popular gay bloggers — like Pam Spaulding and Andy Towle — have attracted large, loyal audiences. Undoubtedly, some of Spaulding’s and Towle’s audiences have given up on traditional print news.
4. And, yes, mainstream news outlets are covering LGBT news more frequently days. (Later in his story, Lavers chats with Gay City News editor Paul Schindler, who points out that mainstream news publishers rarely have the knowledge or nuance to accurately and completely cover LGBT issues.)

In addition to all of these valid points, I’d argue that gay print media isn’t necessarily dying right now, that it’s certainly not dead yet and that doesn’t have to die at all.

A comment on the Village Voice piece by Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal is worth sharing:

The article shows a lack of knowledge of gay media outside of NY or DC.   If you’d look around the nation you’d note that most of the established  NEWSPAPERS are doing, well, very good thank you.  NYC has always been a  tough newsprint city for gay media, going back to the days of Jack  Nickols “Gay,” and the city is not typical of other major cities.   Dallas, Philadelphia & Denver are good examples of Local LGBT media  that are thriving in a down economy.  And we will continue to do so  since we all know the 1st rule of local journalism.  Local, local Local.     As for Window’s.  They were unprofessional, had a lack of experience,  and destroyed everything they touched. And you fail to mention that in  each and every market they destroyed there are new publications  blooming.  The gay print media is growing, just step off of Manhattan  and you’ll see it.  Mark Segal Publisher, Philadelphia Gay News

Segal is right, of course. There are plenty of LGBT media outlets across the country doing just fine. Many of them are growing, and many are or have already adapted to new media technologies.

The paper I edit, Charlotte’s qnotes, has attempted to move forward with our own new and social media integration and engagement. With my background in blogging and citizen journalism, I’ve tried to bring as much of the benefit of new media to our traditional news operations as I can. But, this is really where I think some of the many problems with gay print media — and to a lesser extent all print media — really begin to pile up.

Forgetting about print dailies, let’s focus just on niche publications, specifically LGBT publications, since most of them are weekly and many —  like qnotes, Gay City News, Atlanta’s Georgia Voice and others — are bi-weekly. (There are also some great, quality monthly LGBT publications, too.) In short, weeklies, bi-weeklies and monthlies are much different print news products than daily print newspapers. No secret there.

Mashable published a great piece just this week. In it, writer Vadim Lavrusik explores the death of daily print news. His title sums it up: “Newspapers are Still Dying, But the News Is Not Going Anywhere.”

Lavrusik writes:

Experiments are needed that not only challenge and test the behaviors of  news consumption with digital and interactive forms of storytelling,  but perhaps more importantly, business models are needed that are not  limited to a silver-bullet hope that building a wall around their  content will save them. With the exception of the few, the chances of pay walls  generating revenue from readers who have grown accustomed to free  content online are grim. Newspaper companies that continue to treat  their websites as a dumping ground for news from their print product  will meet their eventual demise.

Throughout the rest of his piece, Lavrusik spends a considerable amount of time discussing innovation by large and small media companies alike. Those innovations come not only in the capturing and delivery of news, but also in advertising (he points out that many smaller, hyperlocal news websites have yet to find ways to profit from their operations). This basic lack of innovation and risk-taking is where many print media companies — again, both LGBT and mainstream — have thrown away opportunities to grow and survive.

In the office, my publisher and I spend a great deal of time talking about ways to grow the newspaper and respond to the changes we see in our local marketplace. He and I are both concerned about what the future might bring. As should be expected, his perspective — as the man who has owned the paper for more than two decades and nursed it into its present form today — is quite different from mine: that of a younger person who has never known or experienced what it was like to depend almost solely on print products for in-depth news, analysis and commentary. (For example, even though I work at a print newspaper I have never personally chosen to subscribe to any print product.)

The drastic difference in our life experiences leads to occasional differences of opinion, and every now and then a good clash. But, I believe our company has been better for it. In my publisher’s mind, the newspaper — the print product — comes first. Financially, that’s where the money is. Online advertising doesn’t even come close to covering costs. Business-wise, his focus on the print product makes sense, but it doesn’t factor in our consumers’ changing habits, desires or needs. Further, without innovation relying on the print product alone won’t always create a positive cash flow. After what seemed like months and months of discussion destined to never end, we rose to the challenge and we’ve managed to take a newer, fresher look at how our two products — yes, two products — now work with each other to build a better brand, reach a bigger audience and increase advertising revenues.

In May, writer Chuck Colbert profiled qnotes and some of our changes for Press Pass Q. “Instead of looking at ourselves as a newspaper that has a   website, we  look at ourselves as a media company that has   two products,” one  print, the other online, I told Colbert.

Certainly, we can’t be the only LGBT publication working a similar business model. It works… for the time being. And while our current tactics work now, we need to be taking risks (calculated, of course) to  come up with solutions that will allow us to serve our communities later.

I believe there are key changes in innovation and tactics that can guarantee the future of niche publications like mine and the countless other LGBT media in the nation:

First, we have to admit to ourselves that there is (or has been, or will be) a decline in print readership and advertising. If it hasn’t happened for your publication yet, it will. It is an inevitability.

Second, we have to admit to ourselves that the reason for the decline is the growth of online media. People can get news anytime, anywhere with just a click of the mouse or a swipe of a finger on their iPhone.

Third, we have to beware of jumping to dangerous conclusions, including the doom and gloom scenario Lavers suggests.

Fourth, we should take a look at all of our viable options (and maybe some nonviable options) and then take the best course of action for our local communities.

I have a vision more far-reaching than qnotes‘ current “two products” set up. I think it could be a great way for LGBT news outlets to innovate and continue to publish news in both print and online.

Right now, we focus on two products: one print, one online. They share the same content and name, but are treated differently as they have different needs, audiences and a completely different advertising structure. Some other companies might still think of themselves as publishing a newspaper that has a website. Neither business models are ideal, in my mind, and each have their own flaws. But, what if we took up a completely different concept — one drastically different from qnotes‘ or most other LGBT pubs and one more similar to the (non-gay) San Francisco Public Press? What if we inverted the business model and changed the focus?

A) Newspaper that has a website, vs. B) Website that has a print product.

Do you see the possible, revolutionary difference?

At some point, we will have to stop merely looking toward the future and instead start focusing on it, with our time, energy, money, staff and all other resources. We’ll have to step out of a print-as-king paradigm and start putting real effort into the future. It doesn’t mean print has to die. It just has to change. Print has to become secondary. In some cases, maybe print has to become luxury.

This change in the news industry will be like other revolutionary changes in our past. When the refrigerator and freezer were invented, ice boxes didn’t disappear. They simply changed, and started meeting other demands and purposes. Today, we still use ice boxes — mostly portable coolers used when freezers aren’t an option. The same type of change and reinvention of purpose took place when automobiles toppled horse-drawn buggies as the transportation of choice. Horses and buggies didn’t disappear — they just started fulfilling other needs.

When new inventions or market changes threaten to change old habits and business models, we have only two choices: We can hold on to the past — and, as Lavrusik says, remain fatally comfortable with slight and momentary increases in print ad revenues — or we can move on to the future, take calculated risks and embrace new strategies.

Change doesn’t mean death. We need change. It is healthy, and it is possible without forsaking our print products. We just have to get creative, inventive and smart.

Cross-posted from InterstateQ.com