Mini-round of layoffs at The Dallas Morning News

Still working, and his heart is in the right place.

 

I think these posts about whether readers care about local news any longer are interesting, and irrelevant. In the "Golden Age" (pick a year) advertising was typically 80% of revenues. And there was not a daily newspaper in the United States that could have survived only on subscription revenues. And the advertisers have never given a a damn about the importance of local journalism, just as they do not now. The difference is that 30 years ago a newspaper was basically the only way to reach consumers in a market. New technology has allowed advertisers to more efficiently and cheaply reach their customers. That is why the newspaper industry is going to hell in a hand basket.

 

The Dallas Morning News — still family controlled — shears its newsroom by 20

Seems to me like $500K is a lot of money for a publisher of a 98,000-circ paper.

 

Which is the exact point I made three posts before the one you quoted. It wasn't suggesting that newspapers ever survived on subscription revenues, so you kinda missed the point. But losing subscribers does drive down ad rates, which means that the advertisers that are sticking around are paying less, which means less revenue, which means another stream gone. So, yeah, whether people find the local newspaper relevant and interesting and are willing to subscribe still remains relevant. I'd argue these days it's even more relevant in some ways. In the old days, a LOT of people stayed subscribed to the local paper because they wanted to get the Sunday ads and the grocery ads in the middle of the week. Single copy sales were big the days those ran and when the help wanted and real estate ads ran (sometimes Sunday, sometimes spread out to Saturday or another day). Now, they get most of that online, so without value in local news, there's far less of a need to subscribe. And with that reality, we're in an era where more and more we're having to abandon the old, ad-based revenue model, and the only way to replace that is with subscriptions. That's mainly how the New York Times and Washington Post have grown recently (that and some creative advertising/news hybridization, which can be problematic). The difference is that now the push for a lot of outlets is pushing digital subscriptions while trying to hit a plateau with print subscribers. Except for a few national papers and a handful of local outlets, it's still an unproven strategy, and even in the places where it's worked, I'm not sold that it's a long-term solution because so many people don't see the value of news. The Times and Post have a lot of subscribers thanks to Trump, to be honest. When he leaves, who knows if those people stay.

 

Amen Alma. This is it. Nobody is exempt from the layoff cause the suits must have their perks.

 

Yep -- this is incredible B.S. They're killing sections and adding syndicated copy. Less is more?

 

There's no chance in hell Fredrick will read that story from the publisher. It would mean Fredrick would have to sedate himself out of pure anger. Bless all hard-working journalists; a wish that the suits would reconsider their lots in life and treat the little guys/gals better!

 

Here's a great example of why you should always be professional and not burn bridges, regardless. Former Mavs beat writer gets job with the team he covered. Probably a lot less stressful