OK, so now you're a three-day-a-week SE ...

Save all the good stuff for the print edition. Fuck the guys at corporate.

 

I think it matters. If people can do without us four times a week, they don't need us the other three.

 

I've come to the realization I don't <i> need</i> a print edition, but I kind of like to have one sometimes. I just ordered The New York Times weekender package because I'm much more likely to sit down with the print paper and magazine on a weekend and dive into multiple long features and enterprise stories. The rest of the week reading online serves me fine. I'd even be willing to pay my local paper for it.

I hate it for my page designer friends, but if the the business side could figure out how to sell ads and subscriptions I think we could mostly do away with the print product.

 

This gives NOTP, etc. a better chance, with three days a week vs. seven, to do what all print products need to do---make your content indispensable to readers and make it different from what goes online. Enterprise, commentary, takeouts, etc. Not rocket science, and reducing your editorial staff is the last thing you want to do.

 

To me this is the disconnect. I do not see enterprise, commentary, takeouts as indispensable, I see them as the opposite of indispensable. We may want to believe this because that type of content may be more satisfying to produce, but they are almost always completely optional reads for the buyer. I am not saying these have no value, but I think we are kidding ourselves that these will attract new readers or, for that matter, will retain old readers. It's a medicine that will kill us faster than the disease would.

 

I think the kind of enterprise matters. For instance, and this is a non-sports example, but we've done a pretty thorough story recently on the billing practices of the government entity that runs the ambulance services in Tulsa and OKC. Turns out, they were doing some things that could be seen as pretty shady, esp. from a public body. That kind of enterprise, the kind that serves the reader, will keep people engaged and bring in new readers.

And I'm not saying it all has to be watchdog enterprise either. There are plenty of things that can do it. The difficulty is that there's no single cureall for every paper in the country. Some communities may want more news, even if it is a roundup of two or three days of activity. Some may want more features and "fluff." Others may want more watchdog stuff. You have to know what plays well in your area and cater your print product to that.

 

Is it possible for the NOTP or the Alabama sites to actually do this in-depth work, though, with the reputed degree of cuts that will include high-salaried (i.e. veteran) reporters who know their communities well? Is it possible to do extensive investigations or enterprise worthy of that Wow! factor or enjoyable profiles when your reporters are having to post online hourly, tweet, film and try to do the legwork befitting such stories?

I don't think so. If they hack staffs and hire writers unfamiliar with the area or, God forbid they use more community contributors, these stories will be few and far between. Their focus is clear - more digital, which right now is a lot of shorter briefs with little or no depth, and videos.

 

I'm not sure I would change my coverage all that much, the more I think about it.

 

this...slow the pace a bit and have fun with it. Look at is as a chance to make some sizable changes and to get more in-depth with stories, instead of chasing down a steady stream of gamers.

I work at a twice-a-week and the pace is perfect for me ... a husband with two small children

 

Dear any person who believes the web is the answer to a thrice-weekly: It is not. Please pull your head out of your ass.
Carry on.

 

Yes, killing yourself to update a website giving your product away for free is silly. If you're newspaper has a solid plan for incorporating your website into its paid subscriber base that's another thing.

 

If I was a three-day-a-week SE, I'd get drunk four days a week instead of just once.