For Newspapers The Main Problem Is Revenue, Not Readership, But If You Want To Improve Readership Here’s Some Tips From A Radio Expert

Philip M. Stone May 21, 2008

McClatchy has reduced the value of its 49.9% holdings in the Seattle Times from $102.2 million at the end of 2006 to just $12.06 million today, yet this is a newspaper that since the year 2000 has seen its circulation actually increase – indeed in the last two audit reports it ranked second and fifth in circulation growth among the top 50 US newspapers. So how come it has just culled 125 staff, including 34 editorial, and its valuation has sunk so low? Answer: the readers are still there but the classifieds aren’t.

David Boardman, the newspaper’s executive editor chillingly wrote that as far as readership is concerned The Times is doing great and that in a typical week in the newspaper’s two prime counties of circulation about two-thirds of all adults are either reading the newspaper or its web site, or increasingly, both.

So editorial has its act together and is giving the people what they want. What’s missing? “The fundamental issue,” Boardman wrote, is “the loss of classified advertising in the printed newspaper.” He explained that in the same eight years that circulation has been increasing revenue from classified ads has fallen by 67%, and it now accounts for only 20% of the newspaper’s total ad income whereas in 2000 it accounted for half the newspaper’s revenue.

And he notes how other advertising has risen and fallen as economic cycles come and go but now, of course, the economic cycle is down, truly compounding the losses that started eight years ago.

Other newspapers have not been as successful as The Times in retaining readers – indeed some 43 daily newspapers have closed since 2000. But for those that have survived, but are suffering circulation and revenue losses, can increasing the readership at least stabilize the advertising declines if not improve them?

Looking at just The Times it would seem the answer is “No”. There’s a newspaper that kept and increased its readership but advertising habits changed and classifieds in print that cost hard cash are now available in many cases for free on the Internet. The question for newspapers is really how do you compete with free classifieds?

Even so, many newspapers seem to believe that if they can reclaim readership then all might get better. That’s why Sam Zell hired his old buddy Lee Abrams who has spent most of his executive life in radio land, to be Tribune’s VP for Innovation with the main goal of turning Tribune’s 10 newspapers (assuming Newsday is gone) into must-reads that will bring lost readership back, and hopefully lost advertising, too.

Abrams is an absolute expert on what makes radio tick and succeed, and he seemingly believes what works in that medium can be put to good use in another,  so his long rambling staff memo this week gave some inklings in how he thinks newspapers need to change in order to attract readers back.

Among the changes he advises:

• Targeting the right audience. He says newspapers have the right idea in targeting the 40 year+ reader, but in actual fact the content is more for the 70+. “Today's 40 and 50 (and 60) year olds have never been more vibrant and alive. My parents were 40 and O-L-D. Today's 40 year old is living longer...more active and alive. BUT-- I see newspapers fooling themselves by targeting 40+ but the content is clearly more 70+

• Newspapers are too subtle. Because many are in one-newspaper towns they don’t “scream out” about their exclusives and other great coverage because they think they are in a monopoly situation. But they aren’t, there are countless web sites and TV/radio stations battling for those same readers, too, and they are not shy in saying when they have done well.

• Own various news subjects and situate a box covering that topic on the same page in the same position every day and update that box daily. It’s an easy way for people to see if there is an update on a subject they are interested in. “The idea here is that instead of ASSUMING people know that YOU have the goods on key topics, you have dedicated boxes with updates in a reliable place...every day. Even if there's no big news on that topic that day, you are there with an update. Then -- when a big story DOES happen -- they know exactly where to go.

“A lot of it is conditioning people to a location in the paper and more importantly using a subtle 2x4 (an expression for a standard sized two inch by 4-inch piece of wood used to bang some sense into people) to drive home the fact that you are ON it. And yes -- I stole this idea DIRECTLY from News Radio who used to hide Weather and Traffic...but suddenly OWN it via "Traffic and Weather on the 8's (every 10 minutes at 8 minutes past the hour, 18 minutes past the hour and so on) " Maybe you could do "Crime on 2" meaning a local crime update is ALWAYS on page 2. Just a thought. But the point here is taking ALL your key topics and having a reliable location where there's a quick overview. Every day. When hell breaks loose on that topic -- you have conditioned (not a bad word) your readers to know that YOU own that topic via consistent, reliable coverage and location.”

There’s something to be said for subject matter being found in the same location every day. Many years ago when this writer lived in London the television listings were always posted on the top half of page two of The Evening Standard, with the bottom half sold to a display ad that probably fetched a fine premium. It made for a simple find and read for commuters on their way home wanting to know what was on the tele that night. Along comes a new editor and that placement ended. The listings grew in space but were moved to inside the thick paper but never in the same place and it was always a silly and aggravating chore to find where in the paper they were each day. Readers like simplicity. Finding subject matter easily on the Internet is considered one of its big benefits. Newspapers need to follow suit. Readers like knowing where to turn for their daily topics and maybe newspapers can really learn from Abrams’ radio tricks.

• Look to tomorrow and the day after. He asks a logical question, one perhaps a newspaper person wouldn’t ask:  Why is it only weather can do three day previews? Newspapers tend to look at YESTERDAY. How about looking at TOMORROW...and the days after. You can't predict breaking news of course, but you CAN condition readers that there IS a tomorrow and YOU will be there. Instead of assuming that readers will know you have the (put upcoming event here) you can guarantee they'll know.

• Make the newspaper the centerpiece of everything you are doing, including the digital businesses. “The better the paper IS and does, the stronger all of the other brands will be!!! Creating new brands to reach nontraditional print demos is good...but the stronger and more potent the core paper is – the better EVERYTHING will be. Sorta (Sort of) like Diet Coke wouldn't have a prayer if COKE wasn’t a powerhouse.... sorta. I DO see a lot of ‘whoa! GREAT idea... too bad we can't try it on our core brand’ Why???!!! Is it ‘assuming’ that traditional readers won't like it?”

• And if it’s good enough for radio… “Using my favorite music analogies—Imagine Newspaper CONTENT is a major artist. Currently they are performing in an old but reliable venue. What happens if the artist (content) moves into a new super venue? Fans will love it--the music (content) will sound clearer...better seats...etc...If you create a new venue (look) and you
  do it RIGHT, people will love it. Not unlike a new baseball park. The
  old one was comfy, but the new one is amazing -- attendance goes up. Fans
  love it. A lot of newspapers need to build that new park for the fans.”

• And then there’s speeding up the decision making process. “Pull triggers fast. Don't over-think. I've noticed more ideas getting over thought than I could imagine. Coming from other media, the degree of over analysis and slow reaction is astounding. Thinking through is good...dragging on for eternity and in many cases EVENTUALLY delivering a watered down concept is EXACTLY what they are laughing about in other media. ‘Oh those old school media companies...so slow...’ They ARE saying that sort of thing. It's all moving too fast to tarry.”

Abrams is getting paid the big bucks to come out with advice like that. Worth it?