• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

From The Publisher in Palm Beach

Moderator1 said:
50 percent is GOOD? Half the people are not reading you in print or online and that's good?
I have no idea what this means, but we were told by our publisher that our penetration rate is around 35-40 percent, and he considered that very good. He said that compared well with the industry.
But, again, no idea if he was spewing BS or what. Up until then the only times I'd heard anything like "penetration rate" I was on a NSFW site ;D.
 
That's the bullshirt they're using now to sell combo ads. Yeah, our circulation blows chunks but look at our penetration. They're all over the Web.
I don't give a shirt if they are, you need to reach more than half your households (I assume that's what they measure).
When I delivered The Washington Post as a kid, I swear 90 percent of the houses got the paper. Now, NO ONE on my street gets the paper.
Still, 50 percent?
 
Wow, a new generation of publishers proves to be huge dicks.

"Not only am I going to cut jobs, but I'm going to use a Wierd Al Yankovic movie reference to soften the blow."

Someone hook up a fire hose to that dude's ass.
 
Remember, that's 50 percent penetration in a competitive market. There's a decent-size paper in the county to the north and two larger papers in the counties to the south.
 
Soft real estate market or no, you know some agent got a sweet commission off the big-ass house this new publisher must have bought. Give him the garden hose, too.
 
Moderator1 said:
50 percent is GOOD? Half the people are not reading you in print or online and that's good?

That's great. Average is around 30%...
 
Flying Headbutt said:
Well when he says things like...

Moderator1 said:
The reality is that if we do not change, we will not operate profitably this year or beyond. We're going to have to re-evaluate and prioritize what is most important for our audience and for our advertisers. We will have to make tough choices about where we invest in our products and throughout our operation. We are working on plans now to become a smaller company, but one that remains a necessary part of the lives of our readers. I know that you are anxious to know how we will get smaller. Obviously, this is difficult and sensitive work, and I will communicate with you as soon as we have some specifics to report.

.... I wonder how well resume paper is selling at places like Staples and what have you?

I went to get something off a printer in our main newsroom a couple weeks ago (sports is in our own separate room/cage, with our own printer), and it came out on resume paper.
 
Newspapers still have a larger market penetration than any other medium. It's not close.
Consider a few stats.
Most popular show on cable television news, Bill O'Reilly, has an audience of 2 million. That's out of more than 200 million people who have cable.
All three network evening news shows have combined audience of over 20 million. That's out of nation of 300 million.
Both of those are free. Require no more effort than using remote.
PAID circulation of dying second newspaper Boston Herald is 170,000 in metro area of 3 million. That's not readership or households, that's copies sold.
Mismanagement is killing this industry, not competition.
 
dooley_womack1 said:
shirt, can't anyone just say, "we're gonna cut jobs"? We get this sickening corporatespeak over and over.

Big words = little guys are forked...
 
He says the company is getting "smaller." But you guys are always jumping to conclusions. It might not mean cutting jobs. He might mean taking away square footage from the building.

Or hiring shorter people.
 
Back
Top