Sun-Times: Happy New Year! You're fired!

Well, there's security and the feeling that better them than us.

But from an enjoyment standpoint, it sucks. It robs the ownership of any incentive to spend. Newsrooms usually lose some urgency; no big deal if we don't get that story today, we can get it tomorrow.

 

Well, if we put our competition out of business, we would have license to print money for the rest of my career. Which means we might get raises for the first time in four years.

 

Ownership would still have incentive to invest because we would still rely heavily on single copy sales, plus there are plenty of other media outlets in the area. Even if there is slightly less urgency, we wouldn't be forced to do stupid things like pay $15,000 for a picture of Britney Spears, which would probably be a good thing.

 

So your current competition goes out of business. Now there's a pool of available labor, ready to slit your throat for your job. Your boss knows it, so he doesn't have to give you big raises. He can just replace you with someone cheaper.

Meanwhile, every broadcast and Internet outlet considers you to be competition and is getting closer by the day to putting you out of business. Which is only fair now that you've danced on the other guys' graves.

I'm all for beating the competition, but I don't need to kill them off. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that it's the soldiers who get bloodied fighting the generals' wars. Frankly, I've got a lot more respect for the guy at the other shop who does my same job than I do the suits at my place who cash their bonus checks.

You sound like a loyal and fierce pit bull, at a time when most masters are like Michael Vick. Go kill the other dog, then end up with a cattle prod up your ass anyway.

 

That's a good analogy.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the poor slobs in their newsroom, because I know a lot of them and I've been in that newsroom.

That being said, it is war, as the Japanese like to say. The growth of the competition comes directly at our expense, ever dollar they get is a dollar we don't get.

 

Not really, there are always advertisers you have in common and they don't buy more space with you if the other guy dies. Nor does the winning paper ever pick up all the dead paper's subscribers. A lot of it just vanishes. Although in most of those situations, the survivor can and does raise prices.

I can't disagree that your paper would benefit financially in some ways. But if you enjoy competition, it's not going to be much fun. Even papers that want to maintain that intensity lose it after a while. It's out of your hands. The entire culture of the newsroom changes.

 

I've worked in competitive and non-competitive markets before, so that's definitely true.

This is all hypothetical b.s. anyway, since our competition isn't going away.

 

You really are clueless. Absolutely clueless about how the business works.

 

Come on Montezuma, think how awesome it would be if one or two chains owned every newspaper in the country!

Golly, I hope it's Gannett.

 

Really? Explain why.

Because I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

 

I've worked at a paper without competition. There's no real urgency, therefore no need to have an excess number of reporters around. And if you're lucky to still be there - here's another beat you can keep your eye on.

Competition is good.

 

Yes, I know. We would still have plenty of other competition, believe me. But business would be a hell of a lot better.

The gains in newspaper circulation and revenues of the 1980s-1990s was mostly a direct result of competition collapsing in many markets.