The Economics of the Big-Time Columnist

You can't blend editorial comment with serious enterprise/investigative, though I'm sure both types of writers would be great at each field.
It's about credibility. Dumb readers are just lying in wait to prove a writer who does hard stuff on their teams has a "bias."

But no doubt, quality column writing, analysis, insightful beat writing and enterprise are the high-value items in the new media market.

 

I'm guessing that if you asked the good people at the KC Star, they would tell you to go with the columnist. While they always have some damn good reporters, that sports section didn't generate too passionate an interest by readers early 1990s.

They sought a spark. They got one when they hired Jason Whitlock, who immediately became a lightning rod throughout the area. People who read the Star would ask, "Did you see what Whitlock wrote today?" He generated a buzz, which quickly attracted readers, which in turn boosted ad sales, which made hiring Whitlock a smart business decision. This comes from someone at the Star I know and respect.

Growing up with Whitlock and Posnanski was a must for me, not to mention a lot of others in Kansas City. We got spoiled by them.

People who cannot stand Whitlock -- and there are a few here -- might bag me for saying Whitlock was worth the money, compared to three reporters who I'm sure would have done a great job. But Whitlock and Posnanski forced readers to pick up that sports section every single day. Those three reporters would not have made the same impact for the KC Star and its sports section.

 

Well, now you've changed the parameters. Your previous post called for columnists to be measured by how many "centerpiece/lead packages" they do. I argue that it's impossible to do 3 columns a week and be the newspaper's top enterprise reporter/writer. But now, reasonably, you say you're talking about columnists who report their stuff. Absolutely, I agree. A columnist is worth a newspaper's top dollar if the columnist comes with reporting skills (beginning with access), a distinctive viewpoint of SportsWorld, and a voice that engages the reader's attention 3x a week.

 

I'd like to see some stats on the ad sales, Oz. And nobody "makes" you pick up the paper.

 

As it turns out, there is documentary but inconclusive evidence on this topic drawn from my former employer the Boston Herald.
In 2004, the Herald hired big-name columnist, albeit a disgraced one, Mike Barnicle, to boost sales. Nothing happened.
In 2005, the Herald disposed of about 25 percent of its editorial staff, including yours truly. Barnicle graciously left his six-figure gig in the hopes of saving other people's jobs.
He didn't. Management axed who it wanted to, namely, all union employees over 45. BUT, Mike's gesture did inform more people the paper was being gutted. Circulation dropped like a stone, as it continues to, and if you have friends at the Herald, they might be sleeping on your coucyh by June.
In short, there is no evidence I've ever seen name columnists sell papers, although good ones do make a paper more readable and enjoyable. But if SAS made the grand gesture urged upon him, the practical result would likely be to increase the number of customers noticing they're expected to pay the same for much, much less, and intensify the Inky's problems.

 

Bill Gleason, a long-time Chicago columnist, once told me that Royko's move from paper to paper coincided with a decrease in circulation of the paper he moved to and an increase at the paper he left. I never saw any figures to substantiate that, and Bill did have an ax of bitterness to grind, but intuition and experience tell me that there is no connection between a specific columnist and circulation. Too many cultural, economic, and technological forces are at work deciding a newspaper's circulation to say that a single writer has more than the slightest of influences. That said, I believe, for my sanity's sake if nothing else, that, all else being equal on the business side, a paper full of good writers will do better than a paper empty of them.

 

Dave, I sure hope you're right. And the dozens of focus groups I've been involved with the last year say you are.
If not. We should all start writing diaper coupon copy.
Readers -- avid readers -- become attached to columnists. They're almost like friends. Knowing they're there. Seeing if the columnist's opinion coincides with their own. That's what this thread discounts. And it is wrong to do that.
Investigative journalism is great. It is what, for the most part, separates print types from others. We need more of it. But it is very expensive. Includes many man hours and often travel. That's why a columnist is more affordable at a high salary than 2-3 investigative journalists. You simply get more for your money, even at the high salary.
So, when a company decides to voluntarily and involuntarily separate from employees, it is a simple equation who is leaving first.

 

Interesting. The paper before this one, most of our readers could not identify our lead sports columnist, who had been there more than a decade. And he was pretty good, too.

 

They could hire five or six reporters -- maybe seven, since the FWST doesn't pay the rank-and-file that well for a paper its size -- for what they're paying Galloway.

 

Lupica's worth every cent.

 

OK, you're right ... I probably should have said "makes you want to pick up the paper." Point is, the Star has done much better business since Whitlock arrived than they did before.

As for the ad sales, I don't work in the Star's ad department, so obviously I can't help you there. Just relaying thoughts from someone in the Star's management when I interned there in the late '90s.

 

Frank, you are right. And, I'm with you. But, for the "avid" reader (5-7 times a week), they did identify with the columnist.
Now, here's the sad one. Bylines, with very few exceptions, went unnoticed. And, I was very surprised. Especially for the longtime beat reporter. (The upside to this is, they were aware of difference between wire and staff copy).
That's the "avid" reader. Now, there were significant dropoffs with "moderate" and "occasional" readers.