Detroit newspapers losing "daily" tag?

I guess I don't understand then.

I'm not against this idea, but if you are going to continue to give away the product for free online then this doesn't make sense.

Why would I subscribe to the e-edition and have to download pdf's and whatnot, when I can just read everything for free?

I guess that's what you just said, but that is what is most confounding to me.

 

I wonder what the percentage and demographics of Detroit's readership have home computers is. From what I know, approx. 2/3 of U.S. homes have home computers, but I wonder how that translates in Detroit and whether that will influence what they cover.

 

This is a particularly salient point from the Freep comments page:

"As a "first," as a template to point to and say, 'no one else ever did this before,' this move ranks right up there with the Lions losing every game this season. No one else has done it before, because it's not a desirable thing to do. It will simply be looked at in other towns as another benchmark of Detroit and Michigan leading through failure. The cutting edge of disaster, right here under our noses. And, by the way, can there really be a need for TWO newspaper staffs, when there isn't even ONE remaining newspaper most days? Wouldn't it have been better to eliminate the redundant editorial staff, and publish ONE paper, than to surrender TWICE and move to a completely different MEDIUM?"

 

Let's plug that post into the Rod Marinelli translator and see what it means.

BLEEP, BLOOP, BLEEP.

In Rod Marinelli talk, that means pad level.

 

Exactly. It seems like a lot more work to read the e-edition. Go to the computer. open your browser, go to the freep page, download the pages, then the page likely won't completely fit on the screen, so you have to move the page around to read it.

And all this, sitting at a computer screen, instead of your easy chair.


Paper edition: plop down on the couch, open page, start reading.

 

I spend plenty of time on the couch reading the news online. Laptop and wireless: Delivering breakfast-table reading since 2003.

 

That's true. Which is why I'm still miffed at the problems at the Star-Ledger which held the NJ market but all of that is for another topic.
When the Times went digital, it was a disaster so I can't see what Detroit can do to turn it around. For the sake of those involved, I hope it works but....

 

Detroit is unwittingly doing its paper-loving readers a favor by weaning them off newspapers slowly. Then it won't be such a jolt when they disappear.

If only they were so genius at figuring out a way to make the product indispensable.

 

But do you take it in the bathroom with you?

I spend enough time staring at a monitor when I kill time on SportsJournalists.com write. Maybe I'm weird this way, but sometimes, I'd rather settle back with an actual newspaper. And when I go to a game as a fan, a copy of that day's section (with rosters, stats, and a couple of good stories on said game) goes with me. Can I duplicate that info with my phone? Sometimes, sometimes not.

 

That reader makes sense. There doesn't need to be two of everything in Detroit, in terms of journalists: Two Tigers beat writers, two Red Wings reporters, two City Hall journos, two business columnists and so on.

There would be a lot bigger savings, and a lot more impact, cutting down from two to one, even if that would be painful for those who didn't make the cut. Readers can't be expected to care too much about that, though, especially in that gasping economy.

 

So they've admitted that the Monday-Wednesday and Saturday papers will be smaller. And yet they're going to sell them on the newsstand for the same price.

And they really expect this to work?