Sounds like Digital First's John Paton thinks print is dead

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/business/media/paton-prepares-his-newspapers-for-a-world-without-print.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Funny that the story says that editorial staffing is roughly the same as it's been. Paton and his buddies have gutted our newsroom, penalizing us for the struggles of other papers in the chain. Managing editor of three papers? Gone. Both full-time photographers? Gone. Lifestyles editor? Gone.

I understand the emphasis on digital - that's a no-brainer. But, people still love their print product - at least that's what our readers are telling us. And, that's what our advertisers are telling us, too. The ad count has remained steady - really.

 

Print is still effective for the dwindling amount of readers. Print circulation is declining for most newspapers and anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Ad revenue is also declining for most papers and those who say otherwise are full of it. There are exceptions, of course, but you can't change the fact revenue is declining.

 

Yes, print circulation is declining. Of course it is. But why penalize a paper where ad revenue is holding steady? Why not reward it for bucking the trend?

And, it really bothers me that the vaunted New York Times didn't challenge Paton on his lie about editorial staffing. I thought the NYT was, like, the best of the best when it came to journalism. Guess I'm wrong.

 

A paper in a chain doesn't exist in a vacuum. Your paper receives some benefits from being in a chain, so it should also bear some of the cuts as well.

And is ad revenue really holding steady? I bet classifieds have taken a hit.

 

Yeah, we've really benefited since they bought us and marched straight into bankruptcy. They've gutted us to pay for the dogmeat properties.

 

Now that I'm not a newspaper person anymore, just a reader, I automatically assume that any story about a newspaper executive that claims he's executing some kind of successful business strategy is just wishful thinking by the newspaper which publishes the story.

 

Is there a significant number of people under 40 that love print? Under 60? I just don't see the love for print as witnessed by the lack of papers in driveways in my region.

 

First, we already have a thread on this:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/87074/

It's easy to miss stuff online. My feeling is that most people who have abandoned print are less informed than they think. Probably they are informed about the one or two topics that interest them. Some have an almost Rain Man obsession with national politics, for example, but want no content that might challange their preconceptions. Often they could not identify their district in the state legislature.

Last night I was in a social situation and a 50-something housewife was asking me, "So why do you guys give it away for free? ... No, really. Why do you ...."

 

Sorry about the d_b. "John Patton" didn't register right away with me (not being a smart-aleck - honest).