Last week, my article "Winning Online: A Manifesto" appeared on editorandpublisher.com, with a condensed version in print. The article sparked a vibrant exchange in the blogosphere and in emails. This is good. The newspaper business needs a vigorous debate, at the highest levels, about the key pillars of a winning online strategy.

E&P editor Greg Mitchell has asked me to write a follow-up to (in his words) "keep the discussion going." While I've enjoyed the predominantly positive tone of most blog posts and comments, I've most enjoyed the critics. They're the ones that keep the debate active, which is what's needed in order for the newspaper industry to constructively confront its strategic choices.

Here are a few.

--On the statement that "local" is indefensible online: "While it's certainly true that the big guys are getting better at feeling more local every day, they don't have the feet on the street that the local paper does… I strongly believe that the 'local' factor will be a key ingredient for survival in this shakeout. Mohr talks about building an industry-wide network of newspapers and how that's the only way to compete. I think he's going about this all wrong. Building a federation of newspaper sites is fine as long as the primary focus remains at the community level." (Joe Wikert)

Joe's points are right on, except for the fact that he missed mine. I agree that newspapers' local positions bring powerful assets. News staff. Sales staff. Trusted brands. And I agree that the focus must remain at the community level. If newspapers adopt my recommendations (join a nationwide consortium; migrate to common platforms), it will. Retaining local flexibility where it matters (such as in site look and feel, content priorities, locally-relevant user generated content, etc.) is key.

The problem with a local-only online position is that there is no scale. Without scale, there is no bargaining power.

An individual newspaper (even most chains) can't forge partnerships with top online partners in the key ad verticals that drive local revenue growth. It can't afford, on its own, the technology and human capital necessary to deliver a turbo-powered, Web 2.0 experience to the user. It can't leverage network-wide data that reveals the best practices in user experiences, which would enable continuous improvements that attract new users.

In a consortium and on a common platform, however, the local assets noted above become great sources of competitive advantage vs. online-only players. Those strong local news teams can work with fully optimized tools and leverage site usage data to deliver compelling and ever-improving user experiences. Strong local sales teams can sell vertical ad packages from top-tier partners. A single national ad network can streamline and simplify the flow of national ad dollars into local sites. In a consortium, the power of "local" is unleashed.

-- "Newspapers must do something to preserve the industry, but a lot of Tom Mohr's statements are hogwash. Specifically, there is a lot of innovation by online newspapers…The common platform is just a marketing idea to squeeze a bunch of cash out of newspapers in some scheme like the Knight Ridder tablet. And it probably would border on a real antitrust problem." (Emery Jeffreys)

Having led a wonderful team at Knight Ridder Digital, I would be the last to say that there has not been online innovation in newspapers. But I hold to the claim that newspapers have not been a source of breakthrough online innovation. Search, free classifieds, content aggregation, new ad models, ad networks, vertical category killers—in none of these areas, with the possible exception of the Real Cities Network, have newspapers achieved disruptive breakthroughs that took online to a new level.

As to the reasons for the common platform, there are three.

The first and most important is to deliver a more compelling, user-centric experience. As Amazon.com, eBay and others have shown, user data from a broad network creates a continuous feedback loop leading to ever-more user-centric features, functions and content. On a common platform, local editors have control, but they also have access to a network-wide dashboard, giving them the data to make smarter decisions.

Second, on a common platform you can go to a single ad network for the entire newspaper industry, with the back-end processes fully automated. Today, it's a mess. Even the best newspaper-oriented online networks (i.e., Real Cities) have highly manual, imperfect processes to place national online orders. This pinches off the stream of potential revenue, because it's just too difficult to buy. Local / national CPM optimization, efficient ad placement, and faster turnarounds all become possible. Make it easy, and national advertisers will beat a path to your door.

And third, a single platform is dramatically more efficient. What a waste to have separate online infrastructures all across the U.S. A common platform would enable sharp deals with vendors, dropping costs for virtually every line item, and improving quality in the process.

Are there antitrust issues surrounding an industry consortium? I'm no lawyer, but the presence of AP, CareerBuilder, Classified Ventures and other examples in other industries would indicate to me that these issues are not insurmountable.

-- "It's true that innovation has not come from newspapers, but he's wrong about the reason why. You don't need a PhD in Computer Science to create something innovative and new; you just need to be willing to do it… in the end, it doesn't take much technical skill to create a cool site; it just takes the guts to do it." (Devin)

Devin is right that you don't need deep tech DNA to enable Web 2.0 feature functionality on newspaper.com sites. However, the online winners with the money—Google, eBay, Monster, AutoTrader, PriceGrabber, etc.—all sit on top of some pretty complex database-driven, algorithmically-complicated technology. So I wouldn't want to completely dismiss newspapers' deficits in tech DNA when diagnosing our lack of breakthrough innovation.

I do agree with him that the other impediment has been "guts": newspapers have tended to focus on quarterly results, which are driven overwhelmingly by print, which retards a focus on online innovation, which in turn makes newspapers ill-prepared to win online.

-- "I can see the appeal in such a strategy—share the platform and / or a common standard for ads, etc., and thereby make it easier for advertisers to make online buys. I just don't think it will work. Newspapers can't even agree on how to measure actual physical newspaper circulation and other easily quantifiable metrics. How could they possibly agree on online standards and / or measurement? I don't see it happening in my lifetime." (Mathew Ingram)

-- "Mohr outlines a 'Marshall Plan' for the papers—and it's a good one. The question is: will the industry listen, or is it too late?" (Steve Safran)

I'm an optimist. I believe the key obstacle has not been will or courage to take on complex and challenging change, but rather that at the highest levels in our industry we lack a compelling map for success online. Lacking confidence in a vision, we have been tentative. With a vision, I've no doubt our industry's leaders will lead.

Here's an example of how it can happen.

Knight Ridder's 28 newspapers sat on a common platform. It had industrial-strength technology that's massively scaleable. The platform isn't perfect; it needs work on the presentation layer to incorporate best-in-class Web 2.0 capabilities. But under the hood, it's rock solid.

When KR's 28 newspapers were suddenly parsed out to nine different media companies in the wake of the sale to McClatchy, I figured that this was an opportunity to achieve the vision of migrating newspapers onto a common platform. I pitched to McClatchy the idea of spinning out the technology into a new company owned by multiple newspapers, creating a newco technology team and then building out from these 28 newspapers to the rest of the industry, starting with the independents and smaller chains and moving up. It was a big plan, incorporating both the common platforms and the consortium idea.

McClatchy declined. To give them their due, this was just after their purchase of KR. They were certainly busy at the time.

The point is: there are viable, actionable ways to go down this path.

Big movements don't often happen on the first try. There will be other opportunities. No matter who leads, who's involved and who follows, I'm optimistic that once they have developed a clear and confident vision, the industry's captains will have the courage to get it done.