Here's what I don't get ...

[Gator]

I'm sure there's been a ton of threads about this, but here's another:

Just had a long meeting with the ME at our paper and things aren't looking good. We're a small paper with a loyal following, but as we all know, the landscape is changing. Younger readers don't want to pick up the paper, but would rather read it online, meaning circulation numbers go down.

We charge for our web site, so I guess that turns people away, but people still need to get their news. I don't understand how we can still be losing tons of money when I feel we have a perfect niche with very little competition. Are people happy being uninformed?

I also understand that the economy is bad, so here is the million-dollar question: Is it us doing something wrong, or is it them not being able to afford us? I suppose if this question had an easy answer, newspapers across the country wouldn't be doing as bad as they are.

 

[RickStain]

Yes, they are happy being uninformed.

 

[BTExpress]

If my city raises its water rates, my newspaper likely will mention it.

If I didn't see it in the newspaper, I would just get a notice in the mail about the higher rates or I would just start seeing a slightly higher bill.

There's nothing wrong with the information the newspaper provided . . . but I can't say it was needed or did me any good. I could not stop the rates from rising, nor can I switch to a different water provider.


The newspaper happens to provide me with useful information that I am accustomed to looking for. But I cannot say the information cannot be found elsewhere by another person who is now wired to seek information elsewhere.

The amount of information in a newspaper today that is both exclusive AND useful is practically nonexistent.

 

[Magic In The Night]

I think people prefer being uninformed. Except for a small percentage, who still, of course, take the paper. People of a younger generation figure they get all the news they need via Twitter.

 

[TimmyP]

Unless ... the newspapers focus more on the "watchdog" aspect of things (to use a term I royally hate).

You could find that notice about the water rates rising in the mail, sure. If the newspaper writes a story about how the water rates are rising because there is $5 million missing and unaccounted for from the utility department's budget from last year, or something similar, that gives the newspaper value and gives its readers something they won't find elsewhere. And if you also charge for Internet access (which I am in favor of), then readers will need to pay for that information, either in print or online.

Is stuff like that enough to save the industry? I hope we get to the point where we can find out. I hope newspapers can decide on a niche where they can give their consumers unique, valuable information and then see if they can survive. The current mind-set of throwing some stuff at the wall and seeing if it sticks, then when it doesn't throwing some more random stuff at the wall and seeing if it sticks, rinse and repeat, isn't working.

Unfortunately, my former shop is so far away from that point, it's depressing. They can't get things like "than/then" and "their/there/they're" correct, so the consumers don't (and shouldn't) have any confidence that the paper and online product has any value whatsoever. And as a Gannett shop with everyone on the desk looking to bail out before they are laid off within 2 years, what are the odds things are going to get better?

 

[JackReacher]

When I moved back to the DC area, I took a subscription to the Post just because I like having a paper to read every morning, knowing full well I can get the same info online for nothing. Didn't pay a lot for it, but I paid.

Stopped paying a few months ago. Wouldn't start it up again. Not even for the cheap rate I paid before.

I can spend that $50 elsewhere and get way more for my money.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

"People are happy being uninformed" is the same sort of arrogance I've been hearing for years from print wonks.

There are many other ways for people to get information on their local area, and many more for national and international news. They have more choices. They're not necessarily uninformed, they're just not choosing newspapers anymore.

Why, with subscriptions to cable television and Internet service, should they also spend money on an ever-shrinking medium?

 

[Gator]

"People are happy being uninformed" is the same sort of arrogance I've been hearing for years from print wonks.

There are many other ways for people to get information on their local area, and many more for national and international news. They have more choices. They're not necessarily uninformed, they're just not choosing newspapers anymore.

Why, with subscriptions to cable television and Internet service, should they also spend money on an ever-shrinking medium?

For national news, yes, cable and internet would leave no reason for people to pick up papers. But again, we're in a small coverage area, we have a pay site and little competition. So if they're not picking us up, they're getting their information second hand.

 

[RickStain]

Turns out all along, people just wanted the comics, the standings, the classifieds and all that other jazz, not the city council reports and features on interesting local people.

 

[Gator]

Turns out all along, people just wanted the comics, the standings, the classifieds and all that other jazz, not the city council reports and features on interesting local people.

I did get a guy screaming at me that we were "purposely withholding the Detroit Tigers boxscores" and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. See, there's something for everyone in a newspaper. How is this medium dying?

 

[dixiehack]

Is your paper actually losing money, or just not bringing in as much as before. There's a big difference there that the suits love to obscure.

 

[mediaguy]

I just scan the paper every day, guarding against jacked-up water rates.

 

[UNCGrad]

Is your paper actually losing money, or just not bringing in as much as before. There's a big difference there that the suits love to obscure.

Exactly. The other one I love is being thousands under budget in the newsroom, mostly because of staff cuts, and yet no standard-of-living increases or holiday bonuses. Shameful.

 

[Gator]

Is your paper actually losing money, or just not bringing in as much as before. There's a big difference there that the suits love to obscure.

Family owned. No suits. And losing lots. So I'm probably not in the same boat as most of the people here, but still it's a bad situation.

 

[Stitch]

I just scan the paper every day, guarding against jacked-up water rates.

Or read about the latest town celebration.

 

[MonsterLobster]

My apartment rent includes water, so I have no need for the paper.

 

[leo1]

when small and mid-size newspapers are finally gone forever, it will take about 5-10 years before folks realize what they're missing. presumably at that point the cycle will start all over again.

 

[HanSenSE]

I just scan the paper every day, guarding against jacked-up water rates.

Or read about the latest town celebration.

All I want are the JV scores, dammit!

 

[RickStain]

"People are happy being uninformed" is the same sort of arrogance I've been hearing for years from print wonks.

There are many other ways for people to get information on their local area, and many more for national and international news. They have more choices. They're not necessarily uninformed, they're just not choosing newspapers anymore.

Why, with subscriptions to cable television and Internet service, should they also spend money on an ever-shrinking medium?

Well, I think what we mean is "people are happy being uninformed about the things we are reporting on."

I think for years people were buying the paper for obits, comics, classifieds and such, and we all assumed they actually cared about the stuff we were reporting on. And maybe they did, because they didn't have any other choice. But with the web, we all have our own little niche of stuff that we care about, and it's not local affairs for most.

 

[bigbadeagle]

What we're running into is people still like the paper but are dropping their subscriptions as they pinch pennies. We've got some competition, three TV stations and a metro daily with a freebie that circulates in our area.
Foreclosures have hit our area hard and I mean hard. We average about 12 pages a week in the legals. All those legals are great for the bottom line but ... the other side of the coin ain't real pretty.
Even our corporate president is trying to figure out what the hell people want out of their paper and what will make them fork over dough to take it. He says content but that takes resources, either in money for content or money in people to provide it.