NYT, WSJ planning regional editions in San Francisco

[PeteyPirate]

This is huge news, correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/business/media/05journal.html?_r=2&ref=media

 

[OTD]

This is huge news, correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/business/media/05journal.html?_r=2&ref=media

Yeah. But as the article said, the Chron and the Mercury-News have gotten progressively worse lately. The thing is, I don't think the WSJ or NYT can do truly local news only a couple days a week. They'll pick up some subscribers, but not as many as they think.

 

[DanOregon]

This will work because the types of readers they will be targeting will be "issue" readers looking for in-depth type stuff rather than a bunch of briefs about a car crashes and robberies two or three counties away. A hold in your hands paper needs to have more than 10 to 15 inch stories.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I'm pretty sure I read in Gay Talese's history of the NYT that the paper's first foray into having a national edition was in San Francisco in the 1960s, but I could not find it in the index. However, I'm dead certain that the paper made a push there in 1988:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/10/us/times-plans-a-new-edition-in-san-francisco.html

I suppose it's understandable if the reporter and the current editors are unaware the NYT tried this before and thus didn't mention it in the story. But I hope the people who made the business decision to try it again know that this isn't the paper's first venture into SF.

The Washington Times, believe it or not, also tried a Northern California edition in the mid-1980s. IIRC, it was printed in Hayward.

 

[fishwrapper]

A lot has changed in a generation. A lot.

 

[somewriter]

And LAT and West Coast papers used to have Washington (or East Coast) editions up until several years ago. I don't think any ever succeeded.

 

[DanOregon]

In a related note - the San Francisco Chronicle just ran its last "Chronicle Foreign Service" byline this past week.

 

[Editude]

Now the paper is full of stories from the LA Times-Washington Post News Service, which in a way would be a competitor to the planned regional editions by the New York giants.

 

[OTD]

And LAT and West Coast papers used to have Washington (or East Coast) editions up until several years ago. I don't think any ever succeeded.

The LAT had an eastern/Washington edition, but I don't think they ever intended to make money on it. It was more of a vanity deal, made to put the Times in front of Washington and N.Y. opinion makers. When Tribune took over, anything that didn't make money was quickly toe-tagged.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

And LAT and West Coast papers used to have Washington (or East Coast) editions up until several years ago. I don't think any ever succeeded.

The LAT had an eastern/Washington edition, but I don't think they ever intended to make money on it. It was more of a vanity deal, made to put the Times in front of Washington and N.Y. opinion makers. When Tribune took over, anything that didn't make money was quickly toe-tagged.

The "Cereal Killer" killed that edition when it was still Times Mirror, but they reinstated it not long after. I think I remember the circ being 10K. Then, of course, you're right, Tribune came along and that was that.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I was wrong. The LAT's Washington edition's circ. was 2,600 when the Cereal Killer struck:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1802