Is this the year we stop running MLB boxes?

No, taking things out of the print product that our readers rely on is why newspapers are dying.

Like I said, I've never seen our readers react to anything like they did to us taking MLB boxes out of the paper. Second place is light years below that outcry.

 

A. That was sarcasm because all Freddy seems to do is tell the rest of us why newspapers are dying. B. We rarely, rarely get calls in my neck of the woods for not running NBA, MLB or NHL, beyond some random stories when we have time.

How your readers react and how my readers react is why there are no absolutes to media.

 

spnited is right: roundups should go first. But be consistent about it. I had a former SE, who may have been the most clueless, inept journalist I ever worked with (for many reasons beyond this), insist that we could run roundups on an as-space-is-available basis for all pros -- even though that would smack of inconsistency and even though we had major-league teams on either side of us, with avid fanbases. Um, no, no, no, no and no. "The readers won't notice! They're looking for the high school tennis scores!" Yeah, Sparky, good thinking.

I apologize for the vent. It was necessary. Anyway .... HH, it at least sounds like you're out in front on this, and at least the final decision won't be totally reactionary.

 

I agree that it differs greatly based on the market. Larger papers should be running boxes on MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA, but eventually the space just won't be there. We tried to cut NBA this season, but brought them back after a few weeks. But I think once you make a decision you should stay the course. If you're in a smaller market and decide to run only the nearest teams, then that needs to be set in stone. Nothing drives me (and readers) nuttier than inconsistency. If the readers know what to expect (even if they don't like it), most will eventually learn to live with it.

 

And I have to agree with Fredrick that the attitude that we don't need to run it in the paper because it's available on the Internet is a dangerous one. I have to admit I've made this argument myself a time or two, but we shouldn't be encouraging people to go to other outlets for news. If they can get it on OUR Web site, then that's different, I guess. But to say, well they can just go to MLB.com, that's just not smart.

 

Did that at one place where I worked and had NBA and NHL teams each about 90 minutes away. Seemed to work out fine and saved our asses on nights when there were 13-15 games PLUS preps and colleges.

Never did understand the logic of running ALL the boxes for baseball, however.

 

Because?

And where do you draw the line? MLB? NBA/NHL? Colleges? Local non D-I colleges?

 

Mark, papers cannot give up. Readers want MLB box scores and NBA box scores and NFL box scores. By giving up and not finding space for them, we are making the newspaper product even more horsecrap. This is all adding up to the ultimate demise of newspapers.
Somebody said there simply won't be space. Then again, just kill the print industry now and go all online. I'm sure Gannett will do a survey where readers will claim they don't want box scores and they want more feel good features about themselves.

 

I agree with your thinking on this Fredrick, and I think that other than local coverage the agate is the most important thing to give the readers. Unfortunately, the space has gotten so bad that there just isn't room for all of it. I think if you are a major paper, you should run NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA and various colleges, autos, tennis and whatever else you have space for. But that just isn't possible with the some of the space restraints we are facing now.
I also agree that we are giving the readers an inferior product if we leave this stuff out, but until we all convince our superiors of that (fat chance), the tough choices have to be made. We cut Top 25 hoops boxes this year, and tried to do NBA. I think NFL and MLB should be the very last to go. But if you're in an NBA or NHL market, then your priorities are probably a little different.
And Fredrick, it just might all be going online-only sooner than we expected.

 

Please understand what I mean by this, I'm not ripping you...
Saying it's available on the Internet, and driving people to find it that way, isn't that pretty much the attitude that got papers in this mess to begin with?

 

To be technical, it's readers and advertisers taking something out of the newspaper – classified ads, mainly – that has much to do with the problems of newspapers as an industry. It directly relates to the news hole issues we're having, for instance.

 

Money's too tight in the industry.
Local copy is the last bastion remaining that paper readers care about.
And the last bastion that execs care about.
Local's all that's left.

National writers abound in magazines and on the 'Net.
That's where they live, now.

Sad but true.