The Internet might be the all-powerful Beast in newsrooms these days, but there's still a stigma attached to a story being labeled as "Web-only." It's as if an editor came by and decreed, "OK, this is sort of important, but not important enough both to print in the newspaper AND put on our Web site." I think this is particularly the case for cultural stories, especially reviews and commentary. Stuff gets buried really easily online. On many newspaper Web sites, it's hard enough to find the top news story from yesterday, much less a theater review of a show that opened two weeks ago.But at The Fresno Bee, where I am a cultural jack-of-all trades (I cover movies, theater, visual arts, classical music, you name it), I've been experimenting with ways to make our Web-only (and Web-expanded) coverage not only enhance the print product but create an online following of its own.
When The Bee last year shifted its Friday entertainment section from a broadsheet to a tabloid, I was faced with a challenge: less print space for local theater coverage. At the same time, the city had gained four new theater companies, meaning an opportunity for even more reviews.
I'd also been grappling with deadline issues. Editors decided we'd only run theater reviews on Fridays. And because of the tab, the production deadline got moved up an entire day (to Wednesday afternoon). Since most of our shows open on Thursdays or Fridays, that meant I couldn't get a review in print until the following week.
That's where my new blog came in. (It's called The Beehive -- yes, we love our Bee puns in Fresno -- and it's a rolling compilation of work from me along with our music writer, TV writer, a free-lance Hollywood gossip writer and other assorted features folks.) Now when I see a play, I write the review as soon as I can. And I post it on my blog. (Here's an example.) I don't have to worry one lick about length. I have all the space I think I need. For complicated shows, that means I can get in mentions of those wonderful secondary actors, say, without shorting the rest of the show, or go on for a paragraph about the lighting design, and even get in some commentary on the social significance of the play. Imagine that.
Then, when our Friday tab deadline rolls around (on Monday afternoon, alas), I take the full-length reviews I've already posted online and condense them down to fit my allotted space that week. Sometimes I have to cut them down to just three or four paragraphs; other times I can get by with cutting it in half. A prominent box in the print version of the story tells readers to go to my blog for an extended review of the show.
I've used the same approach with theater advances as well. Once I figure out someone I want to highlight in a show -- the director or one of the lead actors, say -- then I conduct a short telephone pre-interview and come up with a list of 15 or so Q&A style questions. I email these to the subject with the warning that the answers to the first five questions have to be just a few sentences each. The remaining questions have no space limit.
When it comes time for the advance to run in print, I write a topper and include those first five questions, which gives me about 12" -- perfect for a tab size. Then I post the other questions with the longer answers on the blog. Just as in my print theater review, we include a box that tells readers to go to the blog for a more extended interview. (Another advantage is that I can do this quite efficiently; I cut and paste the emailed questions and answers.) Sure, in a perfect world, we'd have a full-time theater writer working on long, detailed advances, just like the New York Times, but that ain't gonna happen. Still, we've managed to get a meaningful and interesting advance out to readers without spending a whole day on a story.
I use the same technique for some visual art reviews as well. In print, we're able to run an image from a show, for example, and then direct people to the blog entry for the full review.
Remember: I'm doing this basically by myself. My print stories still get posted online and go through that process, but I have control over my blog entries. I've found that if I make a mistake online, readers are quick to point it out. (Editors keep an eye on the blogs, but there's no prior restraint.) I can post a review in a flash, and going back to the office for a late-night review is a thing of the past.
To my delight, the cross-promotion between blog and print has really seemed to take off. Theater directors, especially, can be awfully smart, and the thought and care that go into their written answers has really impressed me. I'm continually amazed by how many people in the theater community actually READ. Sure, these kinds of stories might not get the same number of Web hits as Britney Spears' latest woes, but I've certainly gotten enough feedback to know that they aren't going into thin air.
The online reviews, too, have proved to be quite popular. Lots of comments, lots of reader interaction, lots of hits. Compared to the pre-Internet days, when the one "official" review would run just in print, I'm finding that I'm having much livelier debates and interaction with readers. I'm less in pontification mode and more in discussion mode, and in a way, it's really democratized our theater coverage. Rather than a Web-only ghetto, I'm finding that I'm in a better neighborhood than ever.
I'd also been grappling with deadline issues. Editors decided we'd only run theater reviews on Fridays. And because of the tab, the production deadline got moved up an entire day (to Wednesday afternoon). Since most of our shows open on Thursdays or Fridays, that meant I couldn't get a review in print until the following week.
That's where my new blog came in. (It's called The Beehive -- yes, we love our Bee puns in Fresno -- and it's a rolling compilation of work from me along with our music writer, TV writer, a free-lance Hollywood gossip writer and other assorted features folks.) Now when I see a play, I write the review as soon as I can. And I post it on my blog. (Here's an example.) I don't have to worry one lick about length. I have all the space I think I need. For complicated shows, that means I can get in mentions of those wonderful secondary actors, say, without shorting the rest of the show, or go on for a paragraph about the lighting design, and even get in some commentary on the social significance of the play. Imagine that.
Then, when our Friday tab deadline rolls around (on Monday afternoon, alas), I take the full-length reviews I've already posted online and condense them down to fit my allotted space that week. Sometimes I have to cut them down to just three or four paragraphs; other times I can get by with cutting it in half. A prominent box in the print version of the story tells readers to go to my blog for an extended review of the show.
I've used the same approach with theater advances as well. Once I figure out someone I want to highlight in a show -- the director or one of the lead actors, say -- then I conduct a short telephone pre-interview and come up with a list of 15 or so Q&A style questions. I email these to the subject with the warning that the answers to the first five questions have to be just a few sentences each. The remaining questions have no space limit.
When it comes time for the advance to run in print, I write a topper and include those first five questions, which gives me about 12" -- perfect for a tab size. Then I post the other questions with the longer answers on the blog. Just as in my print theater review, we include a box that tells readers to go to the blog for a more extended interview. (Another advantage is that I can do this quite efficiently; I cut and paste the emailed questions and answers.) Sure, in a perfect world, we'd have a full-time theater writer working on long, detailed advances, just like the New York Times, but that ain't gonna happen. Still, we've managed to get a meaningful and interesting advance out to readers without spending a whole day on a story.
I use the same technique for some visual art reviews as well. In print, we're able to run an image from a show, for example, and then direct people to the blog entry for the full review.
Remember: I'm doing this basically by myself. My print stories still get posted online and go through that process, but I have control over my blog entries. I've found that if I make a mistake online, readers are quick to point it out. (Editors keep an eye on the blogs, but there's no prior restraint.) I can post a review in a flash, and going back to the office for a late-night review is a thing of the past.
To my delight, the cross-promotion between blog and print has really seemed to take off. Theater directors, especially, can be awfully smart, and the thought and care that go into their written answers has really impressed me. I'm continually amazed by how many people in the theater community actually READ. Sure, these kinds of stories might not get the same number of Web hits as Britney Spears' latest woes, but I've certainly gotten enough feedback to know that they aren't going into thin air.
The online reviews, too, have proved to be quite popular. Lots of comments, lots of reader interaction, lots of hits. Compared to the pre-Internet days, when the one "official" review would run just in print, I'm finding that I'm having much livelier debates and interaction with readers. I'm less in pontification mode and more in discussion mode, and in a way, it's really democratized our theater coverage. Rather than a Web-only ghetto, I'm finding that I'm in a better neighborhood than ever.
Leave a comment