Sad time in the business

Sirs, Madames,

For what it's worth, my 17-year-old reads two papers a day, start to finish. When she went to work at camp this summer, she had me forward her subscription to Time.

YHS, etc

 

I'm going to go with Friend of the Friendless here. My children and 21 and 17, and they read the papers, very different parts of them. Reading of any kind is a habit that starts young, and the paper's no exception. That why they invented the funny pages, to capture kids and the immigrants learning English.
If young people aren't reading the paper, it's a good bet their parents aren't and didn't either.
And as I've said before, the easiest way to attract young newspaper readers in droves would be to bring back the draft.

 

I was reading the paper at a young age, too. I mean, really, the first thing I ever read was the newspaper...literally. I opened the newspaper right before I turned four and started reading it outloud.

However, I am the child of a media man. My dad has always done interviews and the news. Now, he's in sports, in a company that is partnered with the state-wide news network. I can't argue that young people are reading the paper, but most of the time, it's youngsters with parents in the media business in one sense or another.

 

Something in a column posted here really struck me.

Newspaper journalists want nothing to do with circulation, customer service, distribution etc. They simply want to do their jobs, be left alone and leave those issues to others.

The problem with that is, journalists are usually the smartest people at a newspaper. If anyone could come up with creative solutions to this stuff, it's journalists-- smart people who are out in the community talking to readers everyday.

 

Unfortunately, publishers seem to rise from the advertising and bean-counter ranks, so you get the idea.

 

I don't think this information surprises any of us. Circulations have been declining for years, and I've never worked at a paper that says its top demographics are the 18-34 year old crowd.
Like mentioned before, with the net, the availabilty of the paper in public, the need to buy or subcribe just isn't big.
NIE people help. Unfortunetly in the big picture NIE is still a relatviely new concept, so it will take a while to see its true effect.

The day is soon coming where almost all papers will be free...with a nominal fee for people who still want home delivery.
Most of your business people will tell you that right now single copy sales account for probably onl 1-10 percent of a paper's income anyway, and combined with subscriptions, you're doing good if that total is over 20 percent.

Make it free and it hits more people, when that happens more people are willing to advertise and more people will take out classifieds. The increased revenue from these sources will outweigh the loss of making the papers free.

The simple fact is few people will keep paying for something they can otherwise get for free.

 

Dooley -- I don't disagree, but I think people growing into the newspaper habit was a rite of passage from an era before the current availability of so many different outlets for obtaining news. My fear is that newspapers are pretty irrelevant to most of those in today's generation, and that won't change as they grow older. In fact, it's going to get progressively worse.

Unfortunately, some studies I've read (and can't put my hands on at the moment) seem to confirm it. A couple of things I've read predict that within the next 10 years there will be at least one metro area of the country without a daily paper as we know it.

It's very sobering. I know if I was a kid today wanting to get into journalism, I certainly don't think I'd take the same career path as I started on more than 35 years ago.

 

OK, Tits, with a first name like that, if you came to my paper and wrote a sports column, circulation would not be a problem.

 

I will part with Dooley on this one.

Sure, we should have an upscale product. But why not have a downscale product? You know, like how there's your basic classes of product in the grocery store.

The only paper I know that's tried this is The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, with its weekday tab. And I don't think Harrisburg is a big enough (or young enough) market to make an accurate judgment, even though Newhouse pulled the plug in less than six months.

I'd like to see The Washington Post try it. No, not Express. A tabloid, more-hip version of the daily.

 

The Post has its metro edition, freebie, that appears to be doing quite well.
20 years ago, Knight-Ridder had an inside track on the electronic media with vutron. They pulled the plug too early citing cost. Had they kept the project going, they could've figured out a way to make electronic media profitable.

 

i think the trend now is going with the niche publications. in my opinion the big boys have given up trying to push the print product and are diverting those resources to community newspapers, alt weeklies and free daily products. i've seen free daily tabloid-type products in tampa/st. pete, miami, dc, dallas/ft. worth and austin. am i wrong or has anyone noticed this?
and to be completely honest, i'm early 30s and haven't read the paper on the weekends since i had kids. there's just no time. i read (or skim) it cover to cover during my work commute or lunch time during the week and usually follow up on big stories online over the weekend when the kiddos are down for the count.

 

Advertisers, the kind who will pay their bills on time, at least, aren't especially interested in reaching a downscale audience. And even worse:

Advertisers, the kind who will pay their bills on time, believe that if your downscale readers show up in their store, they will scare away upscale customers by bringing that WalMart-clientele ambience into their establishment.

Early in my career I worked in a fading industrial city. The department stores at the mall did not want to reach our readers and instead advertised in the suburban paper. When the two downtown department stores died, so did the newspaper.