We just did something that was very hard for us to do. We’d been thinking about doing it for several months now, but kept holding off. But last week we got a bill which increased the fee we owe to the SF Chronicle from $46 to $62 for the same amount of time, the same product, same everything.
So for the first time that we can remember we won’t be getting a newspaper in the morning, and we hate that. Maybe in the future, they’ll come at us with a good promotion to get us back, but for now, we’re going to miss getting our local SF Bay Area and national news by reading about it the old school way, in a newspaper. Damm!!! I feel a little like we’re betraying an old friend.
But look at – we really believe that newspapers have to change some fundamental things about how they run their business — first and foremost: publish 4 – 5 times a week instead of everyday. Second: Cover more and more local news, something we’re not going to get from TV and the internet, unless one knows of where to go on the web to get the daily local news which most people won’t do. Take heed from papers like our local Alameda Journal which covers local news and sports.
This morning I read these now familiar stories of more layoffs and huge losses at newspapers across the country –
From today’s Media Bistro –
Gannett to Book Huge Write-Down (WSJ)
Gannett Co. said it will write down the value of its newspapers by as much as $5.9 billion to reflect the accelerating erosion of newspaper advertising. Excluding the impairment, its fourth-quarter earnings fell 36%. Gannett, which publishes 85 newspapers, said ad revenue at its publishing division fell 23%.
LAT to Cut 70 More in Newsroom, 300 Overall (LA Observed)
With the news out about killing of the California section, Los Angeles Times publisher Eddy Hartenstein and editor Russ Stanton have announcing the latest round of personnel cuts. Stanton says the 70 newsroom positions to be cut represents an 11% staffing bite. LA Observed: Hartenstein realized there would be backlash against his decision to kill the local news section, but that he felt getting rid of the Business section instead would harm the paper’s stature.
Recently, I also read that the Minneapolis Tribune has declared bankruptcy, and that the Boston Globe also announced about 50 layoffs.
I believe that newspaper media companies must adjust to these times when readers have so many choices to get their news, and when the economy is so tough — that many people will do like we just did, and will make the choice to simply not receive the paper any more. How do you think most people working at a newspaper would answer this question?
* Would you rather work 32 – 35 hours a week, and and have the paper publish 4 – 5 days a week?
* Or, would you rather continue to work the 40 hours a week now, and and have the newspaper company continue to lay people off as they’ve been doing.
I’m suggesting that the business model of the industry needs to change, or there won’t be an industry in 5 – 7 – 10 years.
I used to work at newspapers for 12_13 years – mostly in the San Francisco Bay Area – and loved the work I did, the people I worked with, the stories I covered, and the cultures I discovered. Everyday I went to work not really knowing what I was going to do that day, and I loved that. The pay was never very good, but that’s for another time. I have a relationship with newspapers that goes beyond being a reader, as I was part of them for many years.
Your thoughts?
