USA Today's lifespan?

[Twirling Time]

GateHouse pulling the plug on USAT the second the merger closes is the biggest no-duh moment ever.

 

[Pilot]

So what happens to the staff? I'm not sure I've ever visited USAToday.com but even if I am alone in that I can't imagine it can support much. Do they continue to exist as national content providers for all the other company properties and sites?

 

[Danwriter]

Could it have been a bespoke version specifically for (and paid for by) the hotel chain? Good way to keep negative hotel stories out of the news. (Like one about that destination fee you almost certainly paid at check out.)

 

[Roscablo]

So what happens to the staff? I'm not sure I've ever visited USAToday.com but even if I am alone in that I can't imagine it can support much. Do they continue to exist as national content providers for all the other company properties and sites?

I don't know how widespread it's used, but I think they have a decent app and it was actually one of the first news apps I used and I still have it. That said, those are a dime a dozen too.

 

[Fredrick]

GateHouse pulling the plug on USAT the second the merger closes is the biggest no-duh moment ever.

You really think so? Fredrick says nope. There's a chance USA Today and the Wash. Post and NY Times will be the only 3 newspapers left standing at some point. Why should USA Today die? There are all these reporters in Gatehouse who will be working for free for USA Today. I see no reason to kill USA Today. In fact, USA Today may replace most of the actual Gatehouse papers. Maybe have 1 local story a day to go with the USA Today product. If they figure out where to print, distribute, etc., they'll have something big.

 

[Fredrick]

I think people would rather use their phones because USAT always had a problem with deadlines
If an early edition with no late scores is all that's available people would rather use their phones

Let's face facts. You are right. People from 8 year olds, maybe younger, to 60 year olds are totally into their phones, totally hooked on their phones. The ONLY chance newspapers have is via the phone. My question to all of you who read newspaper stories on phones ... because of all the ads inserted in the copy and all the annoying disruptions ... do you even read a full story on your phone? I mean check out big city newspapers on your i phone. You'll be reading four graphs and boom ... a big ad. It looks in fact as if the story has been completed. Why read on unless the headline information was interesting and not yet addressed at the time of the ad? I tell you this. If we're going all i phone ... all stories should be no longer than 3-5 paragraphs. Get in one quote, the absolute best one in a news story and run that with 3 graphs of information. As far as columns, same thing. Get it done in 3-5 paragraphs. Make a point and be done with it. And as far as The Athletic type features? Forget it. Nobody's reading them. Do a 3-5 paragraph analysis of a game or player and be done with it.

Folks ... The I-phones win. Take a look. People are walking looking at their phones; driving looking at their phones; going to the bathroom looking at their phones; on dates looking at their phones; eating dinner alone or with friends looking at phones; watching live sporting events looking at phones. The phones win and newspapers have no clue how to present their stories on i phones.
Fredrick for president, right?!

 

[Jake from State Farm]

I read the whole story and put up with the ads
The real problem is when you read a newspaper, you could scan the pages and something interesting might catch your eye
With a phone or laptop, there are fewer links displayed and a much smaller chance of something like that happening

 

[Severian]

I read the whole story and put up with the ads

Use an ad blocker.

 

[BTExpress]

Reading a newspaper in public almost comes with a stigma today, as if one is a technologically adverse luddite or some alien time traveler from 60 years ago.

I still enjoy taking the paper on a plane trip or picking one up at a hotel, but I'm sure they're are people who are thinking 'what's up old geezer, you gonna check your aol email on your flip phone next'? (The answer to those last two are no and no. Really.)

I read one in public when the chance arises (not often) . . . so I don't look like everybody else glued to my phone.

 

[maumann]

Newspapers were "sticky" long before the definition was used by marketing wonks. Having to pay for a physical object makes you want to do more than read one article and throw it away. But as print hemorrhages money and readership, what's the value in keeping the brand alive as a print product?

I doubt Marriott or Hilton would bat an eye if the paper edition disappeared. It's not a priority perk for their customers. According to a 2016 study by PriceWaterhouse, efficient check-in, loyalty points, concierge availability and especially room quality are driving business travel. When they talk about amenities, they want spas and gyms. Having a copy of the WSJ or USAT isn't even on the list.

https://www.hospitalitynet.org/file/152006244.pdf

 

[LanceyHoward]

You really think so? Fredrick says nope. There's a chance USA Today and the Wash. Post and NY Times will be the only 3 newspapers left standing at some point. Why should USA Today die? There are all these reporters in Gatehouse who will be working for free for USA Today. I see no reason to kill USA Today. In fact, USA Today may replace most of the actual Gatehouse papers. Maybe have 1 local story a day to go with the USA Today product. If they figure out where to print, distribute, etc., they'll have something big.

You left out the Wall Street Journal, which will also survive. But USA Today is trying to hit the middle-brow national market while the New York Times is trying to hit the high-brow market. But the Washington Post is hitting the same segment as USA Today.

The Washington Post is owned by a brilliant manager with a real commitment to producing a quality product and unlimited money. USA Today is soon to be owned by Gatehouse. Gatehouse lacks managerial brilliance, a commitment to the product and is about to borrow 1.7 billion dollars at loan shark rate rates.

While USA Today does some good journalism and recently won a Pulitzer why would any rational human being subscribe to USA Today rather than the Washington Post? USA Today will continue to get crushed.

 

[Severian]

The Washington Post is owned by a brilliant manager with a real commitment to producing a quality product and unlimited money.

WaPo does not have "unlimited money." The paper has some of the best Product and
Engineering teams of any newsrooms in the country. They've turned a profit. One
can't say the same as USA Today, thanks to the bumbling idiots at Gannet/Gatehouse.