'Why Are Some Sports Stories Only Available Online? Why Have You Savaged The Financial Section? What Have You Done To The Weekly TV Book?' – All Typical Questions Bombarding Newspapers Whose Readers Don’t Like The Changes That Lower Margins Force

Philip M. Stone October 11, 2007

Newspaper readers have a tradition of not being shy in telling editors what they think about unwelcome changes to their daily read. But newspapers are becoming clean – telling their readers that, like it or not, it’s a matter of economics and they very much need to boost revenues. C’est la vie!

Follow-up (0); comment (1)

And it’s true on both sides of the Atlantic whether it be a suburban local or a national newspaper. The Times of London, for instance had to go into a long explanation to explain to readers why certain sports stories were not in the print edition but were available online (referring older readers online seems to be a cardinal sin) and newspapers throughout America are having to explain why full financial tables are only available online, or just printed on weekends, or with reduced tables coverage in print during the week.

And since it is generally agreed that newspaper readers tend to be older these days, and since the older generation is somewhat set in its ways, for them, making changes to the daily read really is a big thing.

The London Times quoted one of its readers who was not happy that certain cricket stories weren’t in the print edition but they were available online. And that prompted this comment which really gets right to the heart of the matter,  “(It’s available online) now seems to be the stock response to any complaint about omissions of things one always took for granted in your newspaper. If you’re saying you don’t print items in a newspaper that you used to because they can be accessed online, then why bother printing a newspaper at all any more? More germanely, why should I bother buying one any more?”

Across the pond when the Baltimore Sun started selling front-page ads, and it reorganized its Sunday edition  readers expressed their frustration. But The Sun laid it out in the first paragraph of its story about the reader complaints. “News organizations across the country are searching for new ways to generate revenue and avoid further  cuts to staff and other resources vital to providing readers with a high-quality newspaper. In this intensely competitive media era the choices for managers at The Sun and elsewhere can be tough. Methods designed to boost revenues may also disturb readers, some of whom dislike changes in the newspaper.”

In explaining the front page ads The Sun quoted its own VP for advertising, Linda Hastings. “The newspaper industry absolutely must find new ways to generate revenue and to serve its clients better if it is to survive and flourish,” she said. No more spin about how a front page ad enhances the look of the page, it’s all a matter of economics and frankly that is something readers will understand. They may not like it, but they understand.

Paul Moore, the newspaper’s public editor told it squarely, “Business managers and editors are walking a fine line as they work to increase The Sun’s profitability without doing damage to the newspaper’s quality. Change means risk – in this case the risk of upsetting some of the newspaper’s most precious commodity, its readers. But in my view, standing still is more dangerous.”

On the opposite coast The Oregonian  overhauled its business section last month and the calls, mostly negative, came flooding in. They can be summed up by the reader who left a voicemail saying, “Your business section used to be more interesting than the obituary section. But now that you’ve made this change, the obituary section is more interesting than the business section.”

The newspaper made a point of contacting everyone who complained, and since some complained more than once they got contacted more than once, and the newspaper is now tweaking its financial tables to try and cater to individual needs where possible.

Financial sections seem to be the most sensitive sections for change. Older people  who are not computer savvy don’t like being told to go onto the Internet to look at share  listings that used to appear in print.

When the Washington Post went through that exercise the complaints came flying in. ““For me and for so many other Washington Post customers, November 14, 2006 is the day that The Washington Post died. What numbskull thought that to save newsprint costs, it would be wise to perform a slash and burn edit of the stock tables. In this new reduced format, they are useless,” a reader wrote.

The Post handled it straight-on telling its readers it was all about economics. Jill Dutt, assistant managing editor, financial, wrote, “We made these cuts to save money for the newspaper. As all of you know, newspaper circulation has been declining for at least a decade and although The Post has weathered this decline better than many other papers, we are not immune to this trend. As circulation declines, advertising revenue eventually follows. When those two pillars of our business erode, we have to look to make cuts.

“The Post has instituted many new ways to manage its newsroom more efficiently, but we are committed to providing the highest-caliber reporting both within the Washington region and around the world. That's expensive. We are doing everything we can to save money with a minimal impact on readers. Since all other major metro dailies have cut their stock tables, and an increasing body of research that shows more people getting their investing data online, it was impossible for me not to make some sacrifices there.”

Touching the weekly television program books that are a staple of many Sunday newspapers can be a big cause for complaints. Change the distribution day from Sunday to Friday and there’s trouble. Change the size of the booklet and there’s even more trouble. And the Contra Costa Times in California did both, but at least it kept a TV book which is more than can be said, for instance, about the Los Angeles Times.

The Contra Costa newspaper’s assistant managing editor gave it to his readers straight on why the TV magazine went to tabloid size. “As you may know, newspapers across the country are losing circulation and advertising dollars as more readers go online to get their news. That’s forcing local newspapers to face tough choices to cope with declining revenue. The old TV Times was a surprisingly expensive product to publish, about $500,000 a year. That’s a lot of money for something that gets no advertising support and, because of digital video recorders and on-screen digital television guides is less useful to an increasing number of readers.”

Back to The Times of London and its readers questioning why they should buy a print newspaper if they are continually referred to the online site for stories. The newspaper made clear that while the online site is going to continue to grow and grow, and continue to have stories that didn’t make it in the print edition, print is here to stay. “We will continue to print The Times,” it wrote, “because there is still a healthy market for printed newspapers, as the thousands of people who buy it daily prove.

“If News International thought that the death of newspapers was imminent, it would not have announced in 2004 a £600 million ($1.2 billion, €850 million) investment in state-of-the-art printing technology at three sites in Britian, two already up and running and the largest – which will print most copies of The times --  due for completion in May.”

Quite.

ftm Follow Up & Comments

Post your comment here

On October 11, 2007 Larry Grimes, President, W.B. Grimes & Company, Maryland, US wrote:

I might suggest that we have entered a market environment, and to borrow a  Clear Channel Communication phrase, where “less is more”.  Given the short attention spans and limited time availability of the post boomer generations, the USA Today editorial model for national and international news, may actually be the model of choice for readers aged 16 to 45.  Short and sweet-- surrounded by an assortment, but not dominated by longer, more analytical stories. Requiring a re-make of the newsroom where reporters are asked to author several local stories a day, where neighborhood correspondents become an integral part of the local reporting, and where third-party generated video becomes an integral  part of the on-line experience.  First step in the process, for newspapers to conduct in-depth reader studies from all their target age groups and demographics, and then tailor their products to meet those needs.  The economics tend to take care of themselves, when the newspaper is effectively reaching out to diverse audiences.