The last print subscriber

Well, hell, they'd be crazy to add one today ... that's kind of a gimme ...

 

No, I mean a few big papers I know of installed "state-of-the-art" press systems shortly before the meteor strike.

 

Do you really believe it's not the case?

Local news coverage is almost non-existant in many locales; the 152,000-population California town I lived until recently in had no local paper, and the biggish daily next door didn't cover City Hall. And there wasn't even a local blogger doing it, because no one was interested.

If local news interested people anymore, Patch.com would be thriving.

 

Believe me, ALL newspapers are anxious to dump the print edition. The cost of labor and materials to produce the print edition, then deliver it, are ridiculously high.

But to this point, they can't make money off the web sites or E-editions. There's still a majority of readers (and more importantly, advertisers) who prefer print.

The instant that changes, they shut down the printing press. But old habits, and inertia, are powerful forces — fortunately for many of us still working in the business.

 

You're not wrong with this statement, Mr. C. There's certainly problems with the way newspapers cover their communities ... one that rapidly comes to mind is the same 100 or so people being in the paper every day.

But who's doing a better job? TV or radio? A bunch of moms on Facebook?

 

What he said. Thus the countdown. And well, I hope there aren't too many people like Dick rooting for the day to come before ours does.

 

Our shop abandoned its ancient on-site press last March and bought one several miles away from Dow Jones that was printing Barrons and the Wall Street Journal, among other things. No more "color" deadlines is the greatest thing about this one. Not sure exactly how old it is, but it's a puppy compared to what we were using just seven months ago.

FWIW, publisher memo said the purchase “sends a clear message that we’re here to stay and we’re investing, and we have the money to invest.”

We'll see (crossing fingers).

 

I wish the best. I'm just not seeing the print product in people's hands, in everyday life.
When's the last time you saw someone reading a newspaper in a non-period show or movie?

 

I'm with you. I'm not rooting against the industry. I'm rooting for it.

One of the themes of this thread was that people in the industry need to believe in the print product. Why? That's self-destructive.

 

Double-digit losses per month, even at stable companies.
To "believe in the print product" is to believe in using whisky as a local anaesthetic.

 

Modern Family, last season.

If you are really rooting for the industry, you have to subscribe.

The business model isn't sustainable without a print version. A newsroom needs advertising to survive. The only profitable advertising is print and inserts. Neither of which are in tablet form.

 

I don't know how much clearer to make this: People are no longer interested in the print product. They are becoming less interested in the print product by the year. This is not rooting for the industry to fail. This is the reality. Nothing can change that. Nothing. Certainly browbeating reporters into subscribing to the print product won't change that.

What, then, can the industry do to adjust given all of that?

The idea of ownership by non-profits has been discussed. Fat also needs to be trimmed. I'd cut probably 99 percent of sports travel, on day 1 of my reign. Probably a significant percentage of all sports coverage, in fact. And 99 percent of other fluff, as well, that takes up space in the paper and uses up resources to produce.