Twitter  Questions to ask when you're planning a local news event  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

A hive of long-form journalists: Gerry Marzorati and Mark Danner on a new model for long form

Yesterday at the Berkeley School of Journalism, former New York Times Magazine editor Gerald Marzorati and author and former New Yorker writer Mark Danner sat down to talk about the “the fate of long-form journalism in a new media age.”

Their conversation came on the heels of Virginia Heffernan’s paean to long-form journalism and the possibilities of the new Kindle Singles platform, designed for “Compelling Ideas Expressed at Their Natural Length.”

Marzorati argued that the Internet has not shortened readers’ attention spans, and that the audience for long-form journalism is large, enthusiastic, and happy to read long pieces that are actually long. And that’s a trend that’s been on the rise: During the tenure of Jack Rosenthal in the ’90s, Marzorati noted, cover stories at the Times Magazine actually grew from an average of 4,000 to 5,000 words to at least 8,000 words.* For him, the crisis of the form isn’t the audience, but the expense: Who is going to pay for  the necessary months of reporting, fact-checking, and editing — not to mention the legal protection that intensive pieces often require? (Marzorati has said previously that Times Magazine cover stories regularly cost upwards of $40,000.)

Marzorati’s comments reinforce a trend Megan highlighted this January: In a world where magazine editors are increasingly unwilling to invest in a big, intriguing story before it’s finished, long-form journalists are often turning to nonprofits to finance their reporting. Nonprofits are the “lifeboats,” as Megan put it. They keep important stories afloat until they’re close enough to publication that editors will take them on.

But the most intriguing part of yesterday’s conversation came when Danner asked Marzorati to imagine how he would build a long form-focused organization from scratch, if he had $10 or $12 million to do it.

The first step, Marzorati replied, would be to attract a lot of big-name writers who already have their own audiences. Then, he said, he would “surround, immerse each of these writers in social media tools. The writers would sort of be the hive, and the experience people would be coming for would be not only to read and encounter the writers, but also the community that this writer had created.”

Danner, liking this idea, said that approach might appeal to writers by providing “one-stop shopping” for editing, publishing, literary representation, and more, so that writers could spend less time managing their professional lives, and more time simply writing.

An edited partial transcript of the pair’s conversation is below.

Mark Danner: Are we right in worrying about the survival of long-form journalism? Is it really threatened?

Gerry Marzorati: I do think it is threatened. I don’t think it’s a technological problem, I don’t think it’s an audience problem. I think the conventional wisdom about long-form journalism — that people’s attention spans have lessened to such a degree that they no longer have the time, or they’re too distracted to read long form, or the medium itself is non-conducive to that sort of longer read (the 45-minute, hour-long read) — I think all of those things are not true.

We have metrics at The New York Times that show that people absolutely click the 23 clicks through to the end of the story. When I was at the magazine, the longest pieces in the magazine were the best-read, the most-read, the most-emailed. The pieces also tended to be, at the end of the year, the pieces that got the most pageviews of anything the Times ran…. People figured out their own sorts of behavior. They printed out the story — on the subway, you would see a printed-out version. Or Instapaper. People are reading these things, and they still become conversation pieces. I don’t know how many of you read Larry Wright’s [New Yorker] piece on Scientology, but a lot of people have read that piece…. [That] you can comment on them, you can blog about them, actually brings more readers to these long-form pieces.

The problem is who’s going to pay to have these pieces reported. That’s the problem. That’s really the crisis. You have  fewer and fewer news outlets, you have fewer and fewer magazines, willing to have a journalist report for five or six or eight months, or send them to the edge of the world — and then have the edifice in place to edit and fact-check these pieces. There is a feeling among these magazines that they don’t have to fund these pieces to create readership. It’s a really, really big problem.

At The New York Times Magazine, the number of magazines that were competing with us was just a handful, and none of them makes money. If you go back to the heyday of long-form journalism in the ’60s and ’70s, the publications were also making money —

MD: You’re talking about Esquire, Harper’s —

GM: There were city magazines, The Atlantic, Harper’s, the New Yorker. There were a lot of places that were making money publishing long-form journalism.

MD:  For many magazines, whose identities have been formed with the reputation of funding this kind of work, do they have an alternative? Are they having the possibility that “we can’t do this stuff anymore, we can just stop doing long form, period”?

GM: I think that’s what’s happened. I cannot believe that Rolling Stone’s newsstand sales, or what have you, that that’s being driven by whether they have long-form journalism or not. It’s a crisis of the expense of reporting.

MD: What does long form bring to a publication? [With Rolling Stone], the McChrystal piece earned them a great deal not only of attention, but also news chops. Is this Tina Brown’s notion of  “the mix”? Take a glossy magazine, give it credibility by inserting long-form journalism? What do you have left if you pull this stuff away? [Do they think], “I’m going to cut this stuff, but we’ll be fine without it”?

GM: In part, you’re seeing things like ProPublica rise up. When I was at the magazine, we won a Pulitzer Prize partnering with them on a long reported piece…and here’s an interesting story. [The author, Sheri Fink] had come to the magazine with this pitch years before. She had really no experience as a magazine writer, but it was a really interesting idea. We just weren’t in a position to fund what we knew was going to take a year or two of reporting — and we especially weren’t in a position to make the case to make the money available to someone who didn’t have that experience. Eventually ProPublica funded her reporting, and we got involved about a year before the piece was published, and began shaping the story, and getting our legal team involved, and that sort of thing.

MD: What was the economic model? Most of her travel and reporting was funded off-site?

GM: ProPublica funded most of her reporting, and did a lot of the initial editing. Steve Engelberg, who had been the Times’ investigative editor in the 1990s, is the managing editor at ProPublica. We knew each other and had a good working relationship. It wasn’t without a fair amount of back-ing and forth-ing. It’s very unusual to be involved in a project like that, where you have so many editors. It turned out to be a great experience in the end.

I suspect you’re going to see more of these kinds of organizations springing up, which is not without its own problems. ProPublica has its own best practices. I imagine there will be organizations in the future who have a specific message they want to get out, or a specific line of inquiry to pursue, and what’s the Times’ relationship with them going to be? You need to know the agenda of everyone before you leap into bed with these things.

MD: From the point of view of a young writer who is looking at long form and trying to make a life of it…is the landscape from that point of view worse? Are there fewer outlets at the end of the day? Fewer chances to make a living?

GM: I don’t think we know yet. We’re at a very early moment in web journalism. It changes year to year, so rapidly. Obviously the tablet is going to have a bigger impact than we can even imagine. I think there is something about reading on the tablet that is just more conducive to the practice. I also think Steve Jobs has figured out a way, brilliantly, to get people to pay through the iTunes store. Could you imagine paying 99 cents for a piece of journalism that you really want to read? Probably, yes. If you now have these sorts of models in place, through some startup money and foundation money, someone coming along and creating these kinds of pieces…yeah, I think it could happen, there’s a good chance it will happen. I don’t think we’ll know what it’s going to be until we have the first Harold Ross of Web 2.0.

MD:  Maybe Kindle Singles are an early sign. But there’s nothing in there about the editing method, nothing in there about if you have an idea for a story, how you end up published. It simply seems to be a place where writers who are already of some reputation can publish.

GM: There are a few other projects — Longreads, — but I don’t know if they pay. A lot of them are just collecting pieces from various publications. The problem is discovery — search.

One of the things that’s really taken off in the last 10-15 years: The public has a hunger to actually encounter the writers who are writing these pieces. One of the ways nonfiction writers are able to make money — not all nonfiction writers, but a fair number of them — is on the lecture tour. A kind of 19th century idea, the book as a loss leader for actually going out and encountering people.

[On the web] there are costs that you do eliminate, physical paper costs, which are considerable. You could imagine that someone could pull together a cadre of writers, fund them through foundation money, raise some kind of venture capital money, have some combination of lecturing and writing. If I were in that position, one of the things I would be very interested in experimenting with is: Is there a way to make more transparent the work-in-progress, which you have the possibility of doing online? We’re experimenting somewhat with this in the Times. If you have Nick Kristof in the main square in Cairo and he’s tweeting, can you get people interested in the story through that, and the story comes later? And part of what he’s doing through tweeting is explaining how he’s gathering the story. You’ve got some added value, which you don’t have in print.

Maybe that’s one of the things that will make this work. You subscribe to this place, and you know you’re going to get a story in six months, from some war correspondent, that’s really going to be a big narrative — but along the way, that reporter is tweeting and posting about what he or she is doing.

MD: It’s really an amazing “back to the future” thing. Tolstoy did War and Peace by subscription, and finally, with publication in full, the earlier volumes were substantially changed. You signed up for the beginning and you basically saw it in progress.

If you were going to set something like this up — you had a few million dollars in venture capital — given the obstacles now and the advantages, how would you go about doing it? If I handed you $10 million, $12 million.

GM: You’d have to start by attracting some big-name authors. One of the things the Internet has reinforced is the individual brand of a writer, and it’s to those writers that people go. I was having this discussion with Michael Lewis. He publishes his pieces in Vanity Fair, but most of his readers don’t read Vanity Fair — they just read it because he’s attached the link to a tweet and sent it out.

MD: Most of his readers are not paying readers —

GM: Those writers in some ways have transcended the publication. I think it’s going to be harder online to set up this kind of “publication” feel, this kind of magazine, front of the book/back of the book/feature well, that was there to serve advertisers — to some extent, anyway. That sort of thing will disappear.

You will have to at least start by building the brand around a handful of these writers, and then, how I would go about it, would be just: Surround, immerse each of these writers in social media tools. The writers would sort of be the hive, and the experience people would be coming for would be not only to read and encounter the writer, but also the community that this writer had created.

MD: So are we talking to them, paying to get onto the community, or paying for a Kindle —

GM: You’d probably give them different options. You could subscribe to all the people, you could subscribe to one writers. I’d probably use social gaming mechanics to actually get people returning to the particular place, by which I mean: You become the most important commenter on Mark Danner, you are recognized, because your comments are the most read of all the comments. We badge you. We give you the title and you are now badged.

This has an enormous effect on keeping people coming back. It’s the same thing as in those shoot-em-up Mafia Wars: You work your way up, you kill more and more mobsters. You keep coming back. You have a place in the game. You become a super commenter, your comments are flagged in some way. Maybe you do it in color shades. The blue overlaid comment is the one that’s the most read. Or you get badged by bringing other commenters to the site, bringing 20 of your Facebook fans to the site.

[Marzorati is the Times' Assistant Managing Editor for New Products and Strategies, but when I asked him about comment incentives after the talk, he said the Times is not planning to implement a badge system any time soon — it's just something he finds interesting.]

MD: How would you attract writers? Editors attract writers by some combination of paying them the going rate or force of personality. What are you offering them as a lure?

GM: The promise of getting them more readers than they would otherwise have. You could work out deals with print magazines that you also reverse publish into, form partnerships with Amazon and other distributors…. Ultimately, what these writers want is the best readership they can have, and if you figure out a way to pull that off, the promise of the Internet is gigantic. The reach — The New York Times, on any given weekday, sells 800,000 copies, and you know, we have more than 60 million unique visitors a month. It’s gigantic. It’s international.

MD: There’s also an irony here. The Internet has made long form writers entrepreneurs. You have a website, you have speaking tours, you have a publisher and a literary agent…. It’s more time-consuming for the author. Maybe what you’re offering is one-stop shopping: We are your publisher, we are your editor, we are your literary agent.

During the Q&A session, Michael Pollan, who is also a professor at the journalism school, asked Marzorati:  “What should we teach these kids, especially as long form writers?

GM: I position myself on the more conservative side. I don’t think journalism school is a place to  learn how to write computer code. I think a lot of the tool kit you’ll need, you’ll get on the job. I think our job, if you want to be a long form journalist, is to read a lot of really great long-form journalism and learn how to write it…. Reading is my own particular hobby horse. I think in a lot of programs there isn’t a lot of time built in just to read, to read the people who did it really well.

*This sentence has been updated to reflect the fact that the rise in story length Marzorati referred to came during the ’90s, under Jack Rosenthal’s tenure as editor.

Mark Danner image by Dominique Nabakov.

What to read next
Ken Doctor    Aug. 25, 2014
America’s largest newspaper company says it’s building for the future. But it’s hurting its own value proposition in the process.
  • Suzanne Forbes

    As a lifelong lover of long-form content of all kinds (oh, the gleeful pleasure of a ten-page Dominick Dunne story!) I am very concerned about the survival of the form. Luckily, there are a lot of hats in the solution ring right now, and hopefully one will stick.
    Personally, I’m expecting great things from Repost.Us, the new monetized instant syndication platform from my employers, Free Range Content, Inc. Repost.Us is an iTunes style solution, breaking the news unit down to the article level, so it’s tailor-made to create value for high-quality long-form content. We’re working with a variety of content creators, including those like Spot.Us who are themselves experimenting with new approaches to funding long-form journalism.
    It’s my greatest hope that the widespread efforts being focused on finding a new business model for journalism will coalesce into many solutions.

  • Suzanne Forbes

    As a lifelong lover of long-form content of all kinds (oh, the gleeful pleasure of a ten-page Dominick Dunne story!) I am very concerned about the survival of the form. Luckily, there are a lot of hats in the solution ring right now, and hopefully one will stick.
    Personally, I’m expecting great things from Repost.Us, the new monetized instant syndication platform from my employers, Free Range Content, Inc. Repost.Us is an iTunes style solution, breaking the news unit down to the article level, so it’s tailor-made to create value for high-quality long-form content. We’re working with a variety of content creators, including those like Spot.Us who are themselves experimenting with new approaches to funding long-form journalism.
    It’s my greatest hope that the widespread efforts being focused on finding a new business model for journalism will coalesce into many solutions.

  • Pingback: Hungry for encounter « Snarkmarket

  • Robert_ando

    I agree in principle, but you unfortunately have to tailor the content to your audience. As a retired teacher, that fact immediately jumps out of your argument. Sound bytes have ruined reporting, even if a concise summation of all pertainate facts is given.

  • anon

    There’s a lot in here that’s encouraging to established long-form writers who want to keep their jobs. There’s not a lot in here that’s encouraging to young writers or writers trying to move from the pay-the-rent kinds of short journalism to the long form that got many of us interested in the profession in the first place.

    In fact, this makes the profession feel downright hostile to those not already in the club — Sheri Fink may not have had a lot of magazine experience, but she’d written a hefty narrative book before her fantastic NYT-ProPublica collaboration, and yet it’s clear the NYT thought her as a risk.

    Social media helps those in the club extend their brand, but I don’t think anyone outside the club is going to get an NYT cover story assignment because they have a lot of Twitter followers or a really nice blog. In fact, I can imagine that those things seem a liability — as if a writer who blogs is capable only of that. Some are; some aren’t.

    It’s always been hard and sometimes dispiriting to break into these places. But a piece about the survival of the form, focused on how to maintain an already established narrative elite, is the most dispiriting news yet.

  • Mark Armstrong

    @anon: I’m the founder of Longreads, mentioned above. Valid points, but don’t give up hope just yet. We’re still at the early stages in which people are just realizing readers are hungry for this type of storytelling on the web. Naturally, those who are already producing it (NYT, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, et al.) will have a head start, and they will continue to publish the superstars.

    What excites me is seeing original, online-only publications making in-depth content a priority: The Awl, The Atavist, The Morning News and others are publishing (excellent) magazine-length pieces. And I’m confident publishers will see a stronger business and traffic-driving argument for commissioning them.

  • Pingback: Os leitores não querem só textos curtos : Ponto Media

  • Pingback: The long-form hive : Samanth Subramanian

  • David Dobbs

    I think we should heed Mark Amstrong’s optimism. The rise of outlets like Atavist, Longreads, and The Awl may soon give aspring or developing longform writers — along with established longform writers who want to write more long pieces than the markets will bear — more options than have been the case for at least the last decade. In some ways, they already are creating more opportunities, for you can take approaches in, say, the Atavist that you can’t elsewhere.

    I say this as someone with skin in the game. I’ve been fortunate enough to write long features for the Times Magazine, National Geographic, and the Atlantic (a run that started when I sold a piece over the transom to the Times Magazine) and believe me, even those that sell to those publications find few places they can take a given piece to (I can usually count them on one hand), and then the pitch must compete with pitches from the best writers in the country. These newer ventures will create possibilities for both experienced longform writers and for those who are still trying to sell that first 5,000-word piece.

    I think it makes sense to see Marzorati’s idea as one among many that could create a longform market even more interesting and diverse than we’ve seen over the past decade or so. I could be wrong, but we may be seeing the first stirring of a much funner market for both writers and readers, of which an experiment like Marzorati’s would be only one part.

    It’s a tough time to be a writer. But while there are those who make it look easy, it’s essentially always been tough. It’s just a new sort of tough now. But in the past year along, we’re seeing new kinds of opportunities too.

  • Pingback: “The price you pay for asking people to pay the price”: Gerry Marzorati on class and the NYT paywall » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

  • Ben Montgomery

    To piggyback on Mark’s reply to anon: The death of long-form journalism in newspapers, from where I sit, has been exaggerated. And you don’t have to be in any club to participate.

    There are still plenty of newspapers (remember those?) investing in quality long-form journalism, and not only the big papers. I just finished judging for this year’s Dart awards. Entries included a 3-part series on a deadly flood from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a 3-part series on foster care in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a 4-part series on PTSD in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a 5-part series on poor hospital care in the Las Vegas Sun (each part consuming the entire 8-page news hole; totaling 30,000 words), a 3-part series on bullying in the Boston Globe, an ongoing 4-part series on soldiers’ homefront struggles in the Dallas Morning News and an 8,000 word story on a boxer’s organ donation in the Philadelphia Daily News. Not to mention several pieces of 4,000 words or more from alt weeklies.

    Roy Wenzl at the Wichita Eagle published an 8-part series last year, “The Miracle of Father Kapaun.” Chris Goffard wrote a killer 5-part series on homelessness in the LA Times. My colleague Lane DeGregory won a Pulitzer in 2008 for a 6,600-word story about a feral child. My colleague Tom French published a book-length series, “Zoo Story,” in the St. Petersburg Times the year before that. My colleagues Waveney Anne Moore, Edmund Fountain and I were Pulitzer finalists last year for a series that was somewhere above 27,000 words. Lawrence Wright’s 25,000-word New Yorker piece was built, as he mentions, on a 72,000-word newspaper series by Joe Childs and Tom Tobin.

  • Pingback: story board » Longing for Long Form

  • Pingback: This Week in Review: Google’s content farm crackdown, Facebook’s new comments, more TBD lessons » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

  • Pingback: Media Briefing for Friday, March 11th | Bill Baker's Blog | THIRTEEN

  • Pingback: Oltre il muro della disattenzione. Il “long-form journalism” in cerca di spazio [digitale] | Senzamegafono

  • Pingback: With three cups of luck, Byliner builds pre-launch buzz for its longform-focused platform » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

  • Pingback: #Longreads is becoming more social (and making a play at sustainability) » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism

  • Pingback: The news/analysis divorce: Who gets custody of the cash? » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism