Next up: Chicago Tribune

And people like myself say, "Have you seen the advertising departments? The people working in those departments and their work ethic?" They know how easy it is to tell their bosses, "Nobody's buying ads for newspapers anymore. It's not my fault." And they continue to be coddled. "Of course you can't sell ads," the suits say. I can't believe corporate hasn't killed the print edition yet." Newspapers long ago stopped hiring top notch ad salespeople. The suits have given up and are just waiting for the decision to stop the presses like everybody else.

 

Salespeople aren't to blame for the loss of classified ads. As for print ads, it's tough to sell those when business have cheaper options that reach larger audiences, no matter how good of a salesperson you are. The world changed. Newspapers didn't, and that's why we are where we are. The actual content of the paper had nothing to do with it.

 

I want to thank ChadFelter for coming in and giving us a history of newspapers over the past 15 or so years, like there is anybody here who doesn't know this, and lived it, already. Oh, Craig's List, oh, lack of advertising. You got anything fresh? And also thanks, CF, for unleashing Frederick to make the same posts he's been making for the past few years.

 

No problem! It's mind-numbing to read comments from people who were in the business who genuinely think that newspapers died because readers stopped wanting to pay for them. They were barely paying for them in the first place.

 

Speaking of mind-numbing ...

 

Yes they did. Newspapers turned into trash. They stripped so many pages, so many sections and charged MORE. Way more. Newspapers changed a lot. They got rid of legendary writers in their communities. They got rid of high school coverage. They got rid of timely college and pro coverage. They turned into something only a hooked baby boomer would purchase. Newspapers changed a lot.

 

I could explain again how the business model didn’t change and how the money dried up, forcing newspapers to cut staff and raise prices, or you could just scroll back through this thread.

 

You should make your own thread.

 

I mean, can't all things be true? Advertising revenue has dried up in plenty of areas, yes. Most newspaper chains responded by cutting the number of entry-level and mid-level reporters - certainly weren't a ton of administrative jobs cut. They've also hiked the price up on now-thinner editions. In the past, no, it wasn't really a hard economic decision for me to subscribe to my local paper. Now, if I was still living in Rhode Island, a yearly print sub to the Providence Journal would cost me about $500. (Which, because Gatehouse is sleazy, might not even cover the full year, given how they double charge for "premium" editions like the Black Friday edition.) It's a spiral you don't get out of, unless you hold the line and suffer some awful years, which the corporate-owned papers don't have the stomach for.

 

Sure but let’s be real about the cause and effect. The money dried up, which led to staff cuts and price increases, not the other way around.

 

Agreed that revenues started declining, leading to staff cuts and price increases. However, my beef is that coverage decisions of the people in the newsroom (not suits) have alienated entire professions of people. By disseminating only selected facts, newspaper coverage has cast unfair lights on groups of people who would be very inclined to be paid customers (police and teachers) while glorifying other groups of people who would never be customers (criminals of color). Newspaper decision-makers have made it crystal clear which pockets of people they want to befriend, and which ones they will throw to the wolves, and such decisions have dramatically added to the financial downfall.

 

How dare newspapers write a story that poor Black people might read!

This isn't a KKK support group, it's a sports journalism forum. Go home.