A la carte?

"Sports sells papers. Period."

I want to believe that, and I used to believe that, but when we get the monthly accounting of our 100 most-read stories Web stories, Sports stories are rarely on the list. So I would think that translates to print readership, as well.

 

How much extra are they charging for the sports section?

 

The most read story at my old paper was always, every week, without fail, the county "Most Wanted" cops brief. If it wasn't top, it was second or third. But I don't think that's all people want in their paper.

I personally believe, and reader surveys usually support, that there are people who get the paper specifically to read the sports section. And I think there is a larger number of these readers than the people who get it specifically to read the entertainment/features section.

I don't see the "sports-less" paper being more appealing. I'm also not sure, given the current state of things, that readers would pay more for an al la carte sports section. I have a sneaking suspicion the readers who subscribe primarily for sports would get mad and just stop subscribing.

 

i believe we've had a whole lot more surveys and studies cited here that say that's not necessarily true.

 

Sports coverage builds a more loyal, consistent readership than coverage of the local town council, and you could cite a number of reasons for that.

 

Really? Even during football season?

From August until the end of football season, our Web stats say that our state college stuff gets more unique page views than anything other than obits. Prep gamers are also high on the list. Our sports stories see a slight drop after football, and a significant drop after the prep school year ends.

But I'm not sure breaking the newspaper up is the right way to capitalize on this. It's going to force people to buy two papers, which won't go over well. Ad revenue also has to be a concern. If ad reps are struggling to make money for one paper in this market, how are they going to sell enough for two publications?

 

I suspect the way my ex-paper organized its web page hurt the hits the sports stories got. They had Sports sectioned off in its own little tab that you had to specifically click on to see the stories, and rarely put sports items in the four "top story" links on the front.

I don't know how universal this approach is, though.

 

This paper's Web site is truly horrendous and the opposite of user-friendly. This publisher is also of the opinion that the Web or any emphasis by the paper on the Web is a waste of time. This publsiher, in fact, has talked about "parking" the Web site, believing all people really want is the printed product.

The ad staff utterly has no ability to sell ads into the sports section. They admit they have no one who can do this. Why would any paper have an ad staff that willfully avoids places like Hooters, TGI Fridays and all the sports bars in town because they have no one who can relate to the audience?

This town has spring training and a minor league team. The wall of the park is covered in prospective advertisers. Seems to me an easy place to start.

Anyway, that's the lay of the land. There hasn't been any specific talk on how much extra the paper would charge for the sports section but the rough number is perhaps an extra 25-50 cents per issue.

 

Yeah, our Web site is a disaster, so I'm sure we lose plenty of hits by the way it's organized.

 

Here's what I don't understand: the publisher wants people to pay extra for a section of wire copy. This is the exact stuff they can get in multiple other places. Why would anyone do that? The only reason I can come up with would be laziness.

The premium should be on the stuff they can only get in your paper.

 

Would non-sports subscribers be getting a rate decrease? If you frame it as, "you don't want sports, let us know and we'll lop $ off your bill," well, okay, there are some shut-ins and intellectual posers who will be happy to save. But if I am paying for a newspaper subscription and one day, I have to pay extra for something I thought was covered by that subscription, I would be pissed.

To make a comparison, I am a New Yorker subscriber. I rarely read the fiction article. Short stories have never been my thing, for whatever reason. For every four issues, I might finish one fiction article. If I was offered, save $5 off your subscription by dropping the fiction article, I probably wouldn't take it, but I wouldn't feel offended. But if I was told tomorrow that I needed to fork over extra money or else the fiction article would be removed from my future issues, I would be mightily pissed off. I paid for an entire subscription and to demand I pay extra for certain portions (even if I rarely "use" them) seems like a form of extortion.

Would there be two newstand versions? If so, how would 7-11 clerks be able to easily tell if you bought the regular or supersized paper?

 

That's what is really terrifying ... the publisher will leave the price unchanged sans sports. There's a philosophical issue at work here. The publisher believes sports to be a niche product, like the TV magazine or the weekly entertainment section (two sections that have received this treatment). Everyone else, of course, is screaming at the top of their lungs that sports is one of a paper's four primary pillars (the A section, local section, business section, sports). No matter how much the publisher hears from the public and the people who work at the paper, the plan just won't go away.

Here's a delightful kicker: The publisher floated this plan at a recent state ASNE convention and was practically shouted down. All that seems to have done is further embolden this person.