UConn: Papers? We don't need no stinkin' papers

Newspaper products = print plus web plus blogs, anything under the aegis of the newspaper. Rick is correct. The editorial folks have provided all this content (half the staff, twice the work) but the business folks have not been able to find a way to sell the online content.

 

By the way, I'm not saying that I've found some panacea for what ails the newspaper industry. I'm saying that charging for access seems like a much smarter idea than bringing beat writers in-house and asking them to do the impossible by providing independent coverage of their co-workers.

I think the lesson of the Big Ten/SEC contrast is that the SEC saw that it was better to stick to what they're experts -- putting out quality athletics events -- and to let the networks do what they're experts at -- hyping and broadcasting athletics teams and events. Meanwhile, the league and SIDs kiss the ass of the networks in hopes of favorable coverage, and that usually works out in their favor overall.

 

Your mileage may vary????

 

Yes and very few newspapers have developed any traction with their online products because they've provided little in the way of innovation and compounded their troubles by trying to shift in that direction while reducing staff sizes. The local reporter is expected to write a story, notes and a blog, then shoot and edit some video, then shoot and crop some photos. The quality of local coverage sucks in most cases because reporters are no longer reporting; they're gathering and posting content. Local sports coverage, in the vast majority of markets, is not generating traffic numbers online.

 

Advertising is challenge online, especially with video or slideshows. The number of video views are generally low at most newspapers' Web sites.

 

Another factor is, or was before all the buyouts-layoffs, the age of many newsroom employees probably was in the 40-and-over range. Many have achieved a comfort zone, have children and family obligations, and do not wish to learn the "new technology" that supposedly would save the industry.

They resisted and got laid off or bought out. Some who learned everything and did what they were asked got screwed anyway (the USA Today travel editor comes to mind).

So the result is fewer jobs for a new generation of young techno-mules who will work like dogs, do what they're ordered to do about blogging-video-podcasting and gladly take the paltry wages doled out by taskmasters looking for 1990s era profits, relatively speaking. Their supervisors will be 30-ish hatchetmen who won't blink when told to make cuts, unlike Jim O'Shea or Dean Baquet at the L.A. Times, and still believe they can produce a good product with fewer resources, no money and declining readership.