1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Web Widths

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by journalist68, Jul 19, 2006.

  1. journalist68

    journalist68 New Member

    Why are papers shrinking web widths so much?
  2. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    Some of the papers that are shrinking web widths are adding pages to make up for the lost space. NYT is still losing 5 pct of its newshole, but at least they're adding pages. Same with KC Star when they trimmed to the new width, although KC was still one of those giant-size papers.
  3. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I saw a web once that went all the way across the barn door. That spider must have worked hard.
  4. Herky_Jerky

    Herky_Jerky Member

    We're suppose to be shrinking our web in September or so. I think we're gonna go down to 50" or 48" or something. I really have no idea. But I'm told that it should affect our newshole too much.

    One good thing is that it should finally allow us to get rid of our rail on the sports front. Man, that thing hinders design.
  5. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    We went to 50" 4 1/2 years ago and I was glad, for no other reason than we looked like a modern paper and no longer like Ye Olde Towne Crier circa 1758.
  6. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    And I'm sure the readers were dancing in the streets, too. The look of the pages is very important in their lives.
  7. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    It's the smart thing to do. It's better than cutting jobs or reducing page counts (because it still feels fat to the readers when they pick it up). You can save lots of money that way.

    Some years ago I was a glass office at a midsize and suggested we cut back the stock listings. This was before everyone started doing it. Savings? $200,000 per year. If you find ways to trim that don't hurt the product much, you do it.

    One of the pioneers in reducing Web width -- I think he invented the concept, but can't say for sure -- was my boss many years before he did this, years before he became a publisher. Now I don't know many people who love newspapers more than this guy. Most likely he'd rather cut nothing. But that isn't practical -- he had an owner to answer to -- so he chose the cut that would hurt the product least.
  8. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I don't have a problem with sensible cuts that save money.

    But I have a big problem when the newspaper tries to extend its brainwashing ploys outside the newsroom. Readers DO NOT FUCKING care about rambling bullshit. Saying the paper is "smaller, but better" doesn't play in the real world.
  9. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I will assume you are an expert in the matter and bow to your experience.
  10. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I hate to use this term in these discussions, but it's sort of common sense.

    Unless the paper had been so big the reader couldn't hold it open, why the hell would any reader embrace a smaller product?
  11. joe

    joe Active Member

    A 50-inch web seems to be the industry standard anymore, although the paper I'm at is bigger than that. The only problem I have with the continual shrinking of the width is the proportions don't seem quite right for the pages when it first happens. But you get over that, and when you pick up an older, wider paper, it seems too big and almost unwieldy.
  12. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Since I didn't see the need of rereading my own comment, I failed to notice Aceosaurus' tiny attempt at humor.

    Nice try, though.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page