Fixing this mess

[Xodus]

I'm a sports writer graduating in Dec. and I'm tired of reading about layoffs, buy-outs and Jessica DaSilva (who actually works/ed at the same student paper I do. I, in sports and her, in news. I pray people in the business don't think we're all as short-sighted brown-nosers).

There are too many intelligent people working in the newspaper business for them to think that slashing jobs is a way to save this business. And the continuing emphasis on sending everyone over to the website before they, you know, figure out how to make money with their respective websites is insane. How anyone believes that giving away a product for free is a smart business practice is beyond me.

I think changing the way newspapers go about using their online ads is the key. Google makes tons of money in ads everyday and one of the reasons is the ads cater to what a person just searched for. When you go on a newspaper site the ads are completely random and of no interest to me.

Another solution is (obviously) no longer giving the product away for free on the web. What motivation is there to buy or subscribe if you can go online and read the paper for free? Maybe something like a $5 or $10 a month subscription fee for
reading a story online. It could work kind of like ESPN Insider where you get the first graf or two for free, but you've got to pay for the rest.

I don't know if any of these ideas would work, but it's better than hyperlocal and having no beat writers.

Any more ideas out there?

 

[pressmurphy]

Another solution is (obviously) no longer giving the product away for free on the web. What motivation is there to buy or subscribe if you can go online and read the paper for free? Maybe something like a $5 or $10 a month subscription fee for reading a story online. It could work kind of like ESPN Insider where you get the first graf or two for free, but you've got to pay for the rest.

Try to mix some business courses into the class schedule for your final semester.

No one has a stranglehold on assembling and disseminating information. If the newspaper in a mid-size market chooses to charge for online access, there will still be four TV stations, a 24-hour news channel from the cable system, an alternative weekly, a suburban weekly and a news radio station still shoveling it online for free.

None of their reporting will be as good as that of the daily newspaper, but the the competitors can still generate their page views and thusly sell ads (without the overhead of a 150-person newsroom or the upkeep on a $65 million printing plant) because users will gravitate to "free."

End of story, more or less.

 

[Xodus]

I guess the subscription thing probably wouldn't work, but I think changing the way ads are used online needs to be changed. By trying to use a wider variety of ads catered to what pages readers are currently reading you could hopefully bring in more advertisers and boost revenues. For example, someone reading the sports section could should be seeing ads for the latest sports video games, sneakers, etc. I'm obviously not an advertising major but it makes no sense to me that when I'm reading a sports section online the ads on the side or top of the page are real-estate or about plastic surgery.

 

[pressmurphy]

I guess the subscription thing probably wouldn't work, but I think changing the way ads are used online needs to be changed. By trying to use a wider variety of ads catered to what pages readers are currently reading you could hopefully bring in more advertisers and boost revenues. For example, someone reading the sports section could should be seeing ads for the latest sports video games, sneakers, etc. I'm obviously not an advertising major but it makes no sense to me that when I'm reading a sports section online the ads on the side or top of the page are real-estate or about plastic surgery.

Ah, now you're cooking. Short answer is, yes, many newspapers still suck at targeting ads. Longer answe is that even the ones that are better at search optimization and ad targeting are not able to pull in enough revenue to offset that amount of money that the print part of the operation and no longer pulling in.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

For advertisers, the entire basis of the relationship with the local paper is that the local paper offers them access to the largest audience in that market. Having their ads targeted only to readers of specific stories is the equivalent of that shop owner moving his store off Main Street (or out of the mall) and onto a side street very few people drive on. There is a reason why the A section has the most ads. Targeting ads to a narrow audience makes sense for retailers trolling for national and international e-commerce, but it makes zero sense for local businesses. And local advertising is the bulk of a newspaper's revenue.

 

[WriteThinking]

I'm a sports writer graduating in Dec. and I'm tired of reading about layoffs, buy-outs and Jessica DaSilva (who actually works/ed at the same student paper I do. I, in sports and her, in news. I pray people in the business don't think we're all as short-sighted brown-nosers).

We don't. We're usually discerning enough not to do so. Our problem is that, unfortunately, the same cannot necessarily be said of some readers.

Despite the uproar/indignation over DaSilva's blogs and her lack of sensitivity/insight/smarts, we are, by and large, tough but intelligent, perceptive, empathetic and pretty forgiving people most of the time.

You, from the looks of your post, have nothing to fear.

 

[Xodus]

Well there has to be someway to boost advertising revenue. It's time that there are solutions out there other than firing 10 people every few months and hyperlocal garbage.

 

[leo1]

there are tons of companies out there that do nothing but sell web sites programs that target specific ads to specific viewers. even perfectly targeted ads are unlikely to return the newspaper industry to its glory years.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

I'm starting to believe that the climate of newspapers will get better when some of the larger newspaper companies finally fail. I don't think we're ever going to be able to produce the kind of profits that the current stockholders demand. My hope dream is that new ownership will then step in and be satisfied with paper/Web operations that make a modest profit.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I don't think it can be fixed anymore. I don't think it had to be this way, I think half the wounds were self-inflicted, most of them in the past year. But all the reporting on the industry's woes and all the cutbacks have convinced most people that they are not going to be getting their money's worth if they subscribe. I think I could hit the lottery tonight, buy a newspaper two weeks later, immediately triple the newsroom budget and people who aren't reading it now still would perceive that the paper has gone into the crapper. That's the most damaging thing, the perception that they'd be buying something that'll be extinct in two years. And I don't see a way around that.

 

[RedHotChiliPrepper]

I'm at a 22,000-circ shop and we've had a pay web site for about three years now, and maybe longer. If I'm not mistaken, the online subscription-only was about 600 or 700 strong. A good chuk of that comes from the immediate area. But about 25 percent of it comes from around the state, country and world, including at least one subscription from London from a former resident who keeps up on things here.

The publishers had the "why give it away for nothing" thought a few years ago and started the pay site. There was some angry people at first, but never anything to consider changing back to the old way.

Now I don't know how much sense this makes, but the publishers are also very much against information on the web site that is not found in the paper. We don't break stories online and we don't do anything special other than give you a link of every story that is in the paper. We also offer the whole paper in PDF format which I'm hearing is becoming more and more popular.

I think in our situation it has worked. I don't know why because I'm not smart enough to figure it out. But I'll say this, our newspaper circulation has risen every year for the last five years and we've only had two newsroom positions that were not filled when they opened up in the last five years.

 

[williemcgee51]

I live Xodus' thinking. I just graduated in May and have been looking for a job since then. Granted, I have a pretty sweet part-time gig but have had three interviews and have used enthusiasm as a way to win people over. I understand the business is not very good right now, but instead of listening to grumpy, old sports writers, I am listening to myself. Newspapers are suffering, but sitting around and feeling sorry for ourselves is not doing anything. Enthusiasm is the key. Newspapers will make a comeback, just like Michael Jordan. Call me foolish, but optimism will fix any problem.

 

[Peytons place]

I think it takes more than optimism. Most of us were all optimists when we started. The truth is we're trying to compete in markets we can't compete in. I agree with Xodus that giving away the product is not the right move, and Frank makes a great point that the newspaper's bread-and-butter is local advertising, not something that could benefit from google. I believe that the complete wrong move is giving people less-compelling news written by people with less knowledge, but that seems to be may papers' anwer. Newspapers have struggled in the past, but I believe the key is finding out where the strengths are in newspapers and focus on those. Any time I hear some bigwig compare the newspaper to google, or talk about the newspaper's online site becoming it's main attribute, I wanna gag. In reality, sites like Yahoo and Google make money because they filter nothing (meaning people can use them to access the biggest on-line moneymaker - porn). I doubt that's really where newspapers want to end up.

 

[old_tony]

Another solution is (obviously) no longer giving the product away for free on the web. What motivation is there to buy or subscribe if you can go online and read the paper for free? Maybe something like a $5 or $10 a month subscription fee for reading a story online. It could work kind of like ESPN Insider where you get the first graf or two for free, but you've got to pay for the rest.

Try to mix some business courses into the class schedule for your final semester.

No one has a stranglehold on assembling and disseminating information. If the newspaper in a mid-size market chooses to charge for online access, there will still be four TV stations, a 24-hour news channel from the cable system, an alternative weekly, a suburban weekly and a news radio station still shoveling it online for free.

None of their reporting will be as good as that of the daily newspaper, but the the competitors can still generate their page views and thusly sell ads (without the overhead of a 150-person newsroom or the upkeep on a $65 million printing plant) because users will gravitate to "free."

End of story, more or less.

I know that what you say is the company line at newspapers, but it's the wrong way to approach things. Yes, there are other sources out there that will put a weak product on line. That's exactly why when you have a strong product you shouldn't devalue it.

If you're at a decent-sized paper and your paper covers the local MLB or NBA of NFL team, it's a safe bet that your paper covers it at a much higher level than most other sources. And it's also a strong possibility that it's the only local source actually covering the road games.

You just can't keep devaluing your product and expect to survive.

 

[SixToe]

Optimism doesn't pay the light bill.

 

[Xodus]

Another solution is (obviously) no longer giving the product away for free on the web. What motivation is there to buy or subscribe if you can go online and read the paper for free? Maybe something like a $5 or $10 a month subscription fee for reading a story online. It could work kind of like ESPN Insider where you get the first graf or two for free, but you've got to pay for the rest.

Try to mix some business courses into the class schedule for your final semester.

No one has a stranglehold on assembling and disseminating information. If the newspaper in a mid-size market chooses to charge for online access, there will still be four TV stations, a 24-hour news channel from the cable system, an alternative weekly, a suburban weekly and a news radio station still shoveling it online for free.

None of their reporting will be as good as that of the daily newspaper, but the the competitors can still generate their page views and thusly sell ads (without the overhead of a 150-person newsroom or the upkeep on a $65 million printing plant) because users will gravitate to "free."

End of story, more or less.

I know that what you say is the company line at newspapers, but it's the wrong way to approach things. Yes, there are other sources out there that will put a weak product on line. That's exactly why when you have a strong product you shouldn't devalue it.

If you're at a decent-sized paper and your paper covers the local MLB or NBA of NFL team, it's a safe bet that your paper covers it at a much higher level than most other sources. And it's also a strong possibility that it's the only local source actually covering the road games.

You just can't keep devaluing your product and expect to survive.

That's a great way of thinking.

 

[pressmurphy]

Another solution is (obviously) no longer giving the product away for free on the web. What motivation is there to buy or subscribe if you can go online and read the paper for free? Maybe something like a $5 or $10 a month subscription fee for reading a story online. It could work kind of like ESPN Insider where you get the first graf or two for free, but you've got to pay for the rest.

Try to mix some business courses into the class schedule for your final semester.

No one has a stranglehold on assembling and disseminating information. If the newspaper in a mid-size market chooses to charge for online access, there will still be four TV stations, a 24-hour news channel from the cable system, an alternative weekly, a suburban weekly and a news radio station still shoveling it online for free.

None of their reporting will be as good as that of the daily newspaper, but the the competitors can still generate their page views and thusly sell ads (without the overhead of a 150-person newsroom or the upkeep on a $65 million printing plant) because users will gravitate to "free."

End of story, more or less.

I know that what you say is the company line at newspapers, but it's the wrong way to approach things. Yes, there are other sources out there that will put a weak product on line. That's exactly why when you have a strong product you shouldn't devalue it.

If you're at a decent-sized paper and your paper covers the local MLB or NBA of NFL team, it's a safe bet that your paper covers it at a much higher level than most other sources. And it's also a strong possibility that it's the only local source actually covering the road games.

You just can't keep devaluing your product and expect to survive.

That's a great way of thinking.

And there's a competing school of thought that says you shouldn't give the competition a foothold on the platform (the Web) on which consumers are going to want/expect their information to be delivered for perhaps the next 40 years or so.

You're talking about surrendering ad accounts to competing media because your pay site isn't going to generate enough page views to create the necessary ad inventory.

Divert enough traffic to the TV stations' web sites and now suddenly they have the ability to compete with your classifieds sites by collaborating with cars, employment and real estate vendors, further eroding the newspaper's revenue base both in print and online.

You **have to** put your best foot forward on the web now to beat back the upstarts, or you won't have the resources to do it later.

 

[Sam Craig]

Here is what's truly depressing.

Nearly every newspaper executive, CEO, publisher, and executive editors are called every name in the book when the next round of layoffs are anounced. They're called incompetent, greedy and uncaring. Often times, of course (fill in your own percentage), the unflattering descriptions are accurate. But here's the thing.

From the business side, executives aren't in the habit of killing their business, if for no other reason, they are greedy and it's in their best financial interest to see the industry survive and prosper. And I truly believe that it really does kill a lot of the executives and editors when they lay off workers and when they look at the effect these times are having on all of us in the business. I'm not going to be cynacal enough to assume that everyone from MEs on up to CEOs are uncaring boobs.

And that's what depresses me. No one from the greedy short-sighted leaders to the truly best minds in the industry know what the magic formula is. The unfortunate fact is that the times are changing and there aren't any easy answers. For every possible ''solution" that we think of or editors think of or beancounters think of, there are many reasons why each ''solution" won't work.

There are many newspapers and newspaper companies in the country, and no one seems to have a solution. And the combination of the internet and a bad economy, times are tough everywhere. Hopefully, this is rockbottom and not just a ledge before another greater drop into the abyss.

 

[old_tony]

Another solution is (obviously) no longer giving the product away for free on the web. What motivation is there to buy or subscribe if you can go online and read the paper for free? Maybe something like a $5 or $10 a month subscription fee for reading a story online. It could work kind of like ESPN Insider where you get the first graf or two for free, but you've got to pay for the rest.

Try to mix some business courses into the class schedule for your final semester.

No one has a stranglehold on assembling and disseminating information. If the newspaper in a mid-size market chooses to charge for online access, there will still be four TV stations, a 24-hour news channel from the cable system, an alternative weekly, a suburban weekly and a news radio station still shoveling it online for free.

None of their reporting will be as good as that of the daily newspaper, but the the competitors can still generate their page views and thusly sell ads (without the overhead of a 150-person newsroom or the upkeep on a $65 million printing plant) because users will gravitate to "free."

End of story, more or less.

I know that what you say is the company line at newspapers, but it's the wrong way to approach things. Yes, there are other sources out there that will put a weak product on line. That's exactly why when you have a strong product you shouldn't devalue it.

If you're at a decent-sized paper and your paper covers the local MLB or NBA of NFL team, it's a safe bet that your paper covers it at a much higher level than most other sources. And it's also a strong possibility that it's the only local source actually covering the road games.

You just can't keep devaluing your product and expect to survive.

That's a great way of thinking.

And there's a competing school of thought that says you shouldn't give the competition a foothold on the platform (the Web) on which consumers are going to want/expect their information to be delivered for perhaps the next 40 years or so.

You're talking about surrendering ad accounts to competing media because your pay site isn't going to generate enough page views to create the necessary ad inventory.

Divert enough traffic to the TV stations' web sites and now suddenly they have the ability to compete with your classifieds sites by collaborating with cars, employment and real estate vendors, further eroding the newspaper's revenue base both in print and online.

You **have to** put your best foot forward on the web now to beat back the upstarts, or you won't have the resources to do it later.

If that's the way you think it is, then why weren't major daily newspapers given away for free when word on page was the cutting edge of technology? If you think that 3-5 badly writtten paragraphs on some TV station's website is going to slake the thirst for information in sports fans, then I believe you are sadly mistaken.

 

[pressmurphy]

And there's a competing school of thought that says you shouldn't give the competition a foothold on the platform (the Web) on which consumers are going to want/expect their information to be delivered for perhaps the next 40 years or so.

You're talking about surrendering ad accounts to competing media because your pay site isn't going to generate enough page views to create the necessary ad inventory.

Divert enough traffic to the TV stations' web sites and now suddenly they have the ability to compete with your classifieds sites by collaborating with cars, employment and real estate vendors, further eroding the newspaper's revenue base both in print and online.

You **have to** put your best foot forward on the web now to beat back the upstarts, or you won't have the resources to do it later.

If that's the way you think it is, then why weren't major daily newspapers given away for free when word on page was the cutting edge of technology? If you think that 3-5 badly writtten paragraphs on some TV station's website is going to slake the thirst for information in sports fans, then I believe you are sadly mistaken.

Yes, people (many, but I concede certainly not all) will pick 3-5 poorly written paragraphs over the newspaper site because it's the difference between free vs. paying for it in an era in which 99.999 percent of what's on the web happens to be free. And it won't continue to be 3-5 bad paragraphs as TV and suburban weekly sites evolve. TV sites have already gotten dramatically better online than they were even as recently as two or three years ago (with **professional** video as an added bonus), and they'll have more money to invest if their traffic doubles or triples overnight when the local newspaper's site gets converted to pay-per-view.

As for the other issue, consumers paid for newspapers in the old days because there weren't other options for news -- five minutes of news once an hour on a local radio station doesn't count. Additionally, consumers understood that there was a tangible cost associated with the delivery of a newspaper either to the doorstep or to the newsstand (ink, paper, delivery trucks, carriers, etc.). Other than relatively minuscule costs related to bandwidth/throughput, the Internet does dot have similar costs.

And now there are plenty of pubs (not necessarily newspapers) available for free on news racks everywhere because there aren't sufficiently superior to online content to justify charging for them.