“Newspaper Industry” Items

Demographic Wake-Up Call for Newspapers, 2003

In a 2003 commentary published in the Newspaper Association of Amereica‘s Presstime magazine, demographics expert Peter Francese offers a sobering but forward-thinking look at the structural challenges facing newspapers. Delivered at the NAA Future of Newspapers Conference, the piece outlines how changing lifestyles, shifting work patterns, and demographic transformations have deeply disrupted traditional readership models. [Summary created by AI]

Francese argues that the real threat to newspapers is not just the Internet—but the failure to adapt to evolving consumer behavior. Fewer Americans are buying newspapers, especially among those under 45. Even older readers—historically the industry’s loyal base—are spending less time at home, traveling more, and increasingly relying on digital alternatives.

Compounding the issue are demographic shifts: cities are getting younger and more diverse, while suburbs age and fragment. Women, especially, are more professionally engaged than ever, leaving less time for shopping and local community involvement—factors that impact advertisers and newspaper engagement alike.

Francese doesn’t just diagnose the problem—he issues a call to action. Newspapers must invest in understanding their readers, rethink delivery models, and modernize how they connect with new generations. He warns against clinging to outdated one-size-fits-all publishing strategies and urges publishers to embrace consumer data and feedback more aggressively.

He closes by championing Newspaper In Education (NIE) programs as essential for introducing young people to the value of a trusted news source. Without strategic outreach and content tailored to changing lifestyles, newspapers risk losing not just a generation—but their entire place in the cultural fabric.

“We have met the enemy, sir, and he is us,” Francese quotes. The future of newspapers, he insists, depends on recognizing—and acting on—this truth.

Source: Published in Presstime Magazine, May 2003

Newsroom Stress, 1995

Stress in the Newsroom: A Snapshot from 1995

In July 1995, the Associated Press Managing Editors (APME) conducted a survey to assess the levels of stress experienced by editors in American newsrooms. This was a follow-up to their 1983 study.  The 1995 APME Stress Survey offered a look at the emotional, physical, and professional tolls borne by editors at a pivotal time in media history. The report was chaired by Peter Bhatia, who was then at The Oregonian. [The following is a summary generated by AI.]

The world of journalism in 1995 was beginning to feel the tremors of the digital era. Pagination software was being introduced, newsroom resources were shrinking, and economic pressures were growing. But even amid these shifts, the most powerful insights from the survey remain deeply human: the pressures of responsibility, the desire for excellence, and the personal sacrifices made in pursuit of the truth.

Here are a few key findings that stood out:

A Job That Challenges—And Overwhelms

  • 90% of editors were highly committed to their work, and 62% felt highly challenged.
  • Yet only half reported having a sense of control over their responsibilities.
  • Editors were spending an average of 52 hours per week at the office, with an additional 5 hours at home.

What Fueled the Stress?

  • The top stressors: workload, understaffing, deadline pressure, and lack of resources.
  • Editors reported being “locked in” and feared being unable to change their lifestyle.
  • New pagination technology, while promising efficiency, increased stress for 67% of those who implemented it.

Mental and Physical Health Impacts

  • 41% of respondents had experienced a health issue due to job-related stress.
  • Hypertension (17%) and ulcers (9%) were among the most reported conditions.
  • Nearly half of editors said their job was “highly stressful,” with three-quarters experiencing high stress multiple times per week.

Stress at Home

  • 76% said their family was exposed to public scrutiny because of their editorial role.
  • Editors found it difficult to balance their jobs with family commitments, especially in dual-career households.
  • Marital conflicts, sleep disruption, and emotional burnout were common themes.

Coping Mechanisms

  • Editors turned to reading, music, exercise, humor, and spending time alone to decompress.
  • Alcohol and tobacco use were notably on the decline
  • Few turned to professional therapy—less than 10% reported seeing a counselor or therapist.

A Snapshot of a Changing Era

This survey, compiled and analyzed by Bardsley & Neidhart Inc., is more than just a stress audit—it is a time capsule of journalism at the edge of digital transformation. Editors were not only managing newspapers; they were managing expectations, shrinking budgets, changing technologies, and the growing emotional weight of their public roles.

As we look back from 2025, it is striking how many of the issues from 1995 remain relevant. Today’s media leaders still wrestle with technological change, financial pressures, and the challenge of maintaining editorial standards.

📎 Read the full 1995 APME Stress Survey here

Driving Web to Print

At the 2002 IFRA Asia Conference in Bangkok (held March 20–22, 2002), I presented findings from a research project close to my heart—one that explored how newspapers could actually increase print subscriptions using their websites. Yes, increase. At the time, this idea ran counter to the conventional wisdom that digital only eroded print. [This AI-generated summary is drawn my presentation slides.]

The project was a collaboration between my consultancy, Finberg-Gentry, and a number of forward-thinking circulation and online leaders across the industry. Our research included:

  • Over 100 site reviews
  • 290 responses from circulation managers
  • And dozens of in-depth interviews with media professionals

We asked a simple but often overlooked question: What if the web could help sell the newspaper?

What we found was encouraging—and revealing.

Some newspapers were already leveraging their digital platforms to drive subscriptions, but these successes had something in common: cooperation. When online and circulation teams worked together, when they shared goals and data, the results followed.

Unfortunately, that kind of collaboration was rare. Too often, subscription links were hidden “below the fold.” Technology systems didn’t talk to each other. Customer data wasn’t shared. And the user experience—especially for signing up or managing delivery—was clunky at best.

We identified several key challenges:

  • Most newspapers didn’t have an integrated system for online and print circulation.

  • Subscription buttons were buried or mislabeled—making it hard for users to take action.

  • Only 15% of papers offered web-exclusive pricing.

  • Many didn’t even allow basic customer service functions—like stopping or holding delivery—online.

But there were bright spots.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune used contests to generate over 6,000 subscription orders a year. The Poughkeepsie Journal tracked retention of web-generated subscriptions and found they performed just as well—if not better—than other channels. The Houston Chronicle developed a user-friendly online service center that set a new standard for self-service.

What all these examples showed was that technology and strategy must go hand-in-hand. We couldn’t just slap a “Subscribe” link on a site and hope it worked. We needed to design digital experiences that respected what users had come to expect—speed, convenience, clarity—and we needed to do it without forgetting the power and value of the printed product.

In the end, my presentation message was simple: web and print aren’t rivals—they’re partners. But partnership requires intent. It requires shared ownership. And, perhaps most importantly, it requires that we stop thinking in silos.

The opportunity for newspapers to increase their audiences across platforms is still very real. But it’s up to us to build the systems, culture, and customer experiences to make it happen. The full report is available on this site.

Digital Credibility, IFRA Presentation

In my 2002 presentation at the IFRA Asia Conference, held in Bangkok, I addressed the critical topic of credibility in online journalism, highlighting its significant impact on media brands and their audiences. As Managing Director of the Digital Futurist Consultancy, I shared insights from the Digital Journalism Credibility Study, sponsored by the Online News Association and funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. [This AI-generated summary is drawn my presentation slides.]

In our research, we explored how consumers and media professionals perceive credibility online, identifying four key types of credibility:

1. Presumed Credibility: Assumptions based on domain names, web traffic, and update frequency.
2. Reputed Credibility: Influenced by third-party recommendations or references.
3. Surface Credibility: Based on first impressions of a site’s professional appearance and navigability.
4. Experienced Credibility: Derived from ongoing user experience, ease of navigation, and perceived content accuracy.

Key insights from our survey revealed that the public had not yet firmly decided on the credibility of online news, presenting an opportunity for media organizations to differentiate themselves through credible reporting practices. Factors such as accuracy, completeness, fairness, and timeliness strongly influence credibility perceptions. Additionally, I emphasized the essential need for a clear separation between editorial and advertising content to maintain consumer trust.

Ultimately, I concluded that the debate on digital credibility remains open, offering both challenges and opportunities for media companies aiming to establish or reinforce their reputation online. Credibility, I argued, is a business imperative in the evolving digital landscape.

The full report is on this site.

Impact of Technology on Newsrooms, 1993

In a forward-looking presentation at the Seybold Conference in San Francisco in 1993, I explore the transformational impact of digital technology on the newsroom. Speaking in 1993, at the dawn of the digital revolution, I emphasize that technological change isn’t just about adopting new tools—it’s about fundamentally rethinking how journalism is practiced, how newsrooms are structured, and how people work together. The shift to digital, I argue, is not just evolutionary but revolutionary.

Key Points

  • Circular Workflows: Traditional linear production is giving way to a more collaborative, integrated process where editing, design, and content development happen in tandem.

  • Hybrid Roles – The “One Journalist”: Roles are blending. Journalists increasingly need to be multi-skilled—handling editing, layout, design, and even multimedia (audio, video, fax).

  • Organizational Shifts: Old org charts no longer reflect reality. The focus is moving toward fluid, cross-functional teams rather than rigid editorial silos.

  • Technology = Fewer Machines, Bigger Changes: While digital tools reduce hardware needs and cut costs, they also force reevaluation of workflows and staffing.

  • Tech is About People: Choosing the right tools starts with understanding how people work and how tasks flow. The goal is to enable, not restrict.

  • Leadership Through Learning: Managers must lead by example—learning new tools themselves, supporting their teams, and helping leadership embrace change.

  • Evolution vs. Revolution: Recognizing the difference is key. Shifts like hot type to cold type are evolutionary. The move to digital production is revolutionary—and demands a new mindset.

The file is a PDF of the presentation slides.

A View of News from the 1940s

In cleaning our storage unit, I came across a series of books titled “Building America” that belong to Kate Finberg’s family in Michigan. They were published in the late 1930s and early 1940s by the National Education Association (NEA), through its Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development.  One of the books was about “news.” The section is an interesting history lesson as how the public viewed the press and provided a look at the technology used to create and distribute information at that time.

From the booklet:

This study unit of Building America takes up important questions dealing with news:

  1. How did Americans get news in the past?
  2. How do modern papers gather and distribute news?
  3. Are modern newspapers too sensational?
  4. Does America have “freedom of the press”?
  5. How can we make sure that newspapers, the radio, and newsreels give us important and truthful news?

The books are really bound copies of pamphlets that probably were distributed to schools and other locations.  The next “chapter” of this volume is about “Farmers”.

Here’s what Chat GPT wrote:

 “The Building America series reflects the NEA’s emphasis on civic education, democracy, and national identity.”

“The Building America series was more than just a history book—it was a carefully designed educational resource aimed at shaping young Americans’ understanding of their country’s past and future. By publishing this series, the NEA sought to:
✔ Provide a structured, standardized history curriculum.
✔ Reinforce democratic and civic ideals, especially in a time of global conflict.
✔ Highlight key industries

I also asked Chat GPT whether this series is propaganda. Here’s its response:

While the Building America series may not have been pure propaganda, it likely contained ideological framing that emphasized American exceptionalism, democracy, and civic duty—especially in the context of WWII. It served both an educational and nation-building function, shaping how young Americans understood their country.

Newspaper Circulation Report, 1988

It is striking how far circulation numbers have fallen.  I found a page from Editor & Publisher from 1988 that reported on the top 25 newspapers in the U.S. in terms of circulation. The decline is striking. Here’s the start of the story:

By Mark Fitzgerald
When the year began, numerous newspaper advertising analysts declared that 1988 would be a banner year.

Midway through this lackluster year, they revised their projections downward.

Much the same thing seems to be happening with newspaper circula­tion, according to the results of the latest FAS-FAX report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

When the FAS-FAX for the six months ended March 31, 1988, came out, daily circulation seemed a special bright spot in a dull year.
With the release of the FAS-FAX for six months ended Sept. 30, 1988, however, the other shoe has dropped.

Here’s a look at five newspapers, 1988 versus 2023-24 daily circulation data:

Newspaper                1988                Most Recent               Decline (%)
Wall Street Journal 1,869,000       609,654     2023      ~67%
New York Times       1,116,334         296,329     2023      ~73%
Los Angeles Times   1,112,344         118,760       2023     ~89%
Chicago Tribune       1,098,127          73,000       2024    ~93%
Arizona Republic      320,409            67,510        2023     ~79%

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

         
         
         
         
         
         

The complete list of 25 is available in the article. It includes Sunday circulation numbers.

 

State of Newspapers on the Web, 2001

A 2001 report by the research company The Yankee Group has some very interesting observations about the future of the print media in the online world.  From the summary:

Our Interactive Consumer (IAC) Survey 2000 reveals that online consumers are going to the Web in search of news content. One quarter of online consumers rank looking for national news as one of their top three activities online, and 35% visit their local newspaper online at least daily or once a week. While newspapers have been subjected to harsh criticisms in regard to their online strategies over the past few years, they have a lot to bring to the table in the online world, especially when it comes to serving their local communities.

A very optimistic view of the ability of many newspaper publishers and companies to leverage their content into a new medium.  The report correctly, in my opinion, highlighted some of the challenges that newspaper companies face:

  1. Commoditization: The immediacy and dynamic nature of Web content has pushed journalistic deadlines to seconds rather than minutes and has made news so readily available that not only is it “old” as soon as it is posted to a Web site, but it has become a commodity. We are reaching a point when consumers can get their news whenever and however they want it. This poses a significant threat to print newspapers because consumers have more sources to turn to for their news than ever before.

  2. Sluggish Migration of Newspapers to the Online Channel: Although some newspapers such as the San Jose Mercury News, which started publishing its Mercury Center site (now known as bayarea.com) online through AOL in May 1993, are considered by many to be Internet pioneers in the newspaper industry, others have been slower to develop their online strategies. The Newspaper Association of America estimates that approximately 10% to 20% of all daily newspapers still do not have an online presence.

  3. Cannibalization of Subscription Revenues: One of the most serious charges levied against online newspaper editions over the past few years is that of cannibalization. By offering news online for free, newspapers–so the theory goes–are in effect cannibalizing and killing their print sales channel. In addition, most of the content offered in the print edition is also offered online. Given this situation, why would consumers choose to maintain a subscription to the print edition when they can receive the newspaper online for free? This argument has also fueled speculation that the Internet will cause the demise of the print newspaper industry.

Interestingly, the report didn’t write much about the cannibalization of advertising revenues, especially classified advertising.

Attracting and Retaining Readers, 1986

For as long as I was in the newspaper industry, I’ve heard the refrain “we need to attract new and retain our current readers.”

Mostly, in the “olden days” that meant a new promotion or some kind of circulation push [cut the prices and retain them when the full-cost renewal hits].

The American Press Institute held a seminar in November 1986 and invited 21 editors, publishers, circulation directors and other executives to focus on:

• Meeting the needs of a changing newspaper audience.
• Increasing household penetration.
• Reader retention.
• Fresh methods for marketing and promoting the newspaper.

While the report on the conference focus on aspects of the newspaper industry that are revenue driven — advertising and circulation– there was some discussion about improving the overall editorial product.  From the section titled “Relating to Readers,” Chris Anderson, editor of the Orange Country Register urged an upgrade of the quality of content:

“Quality sells newspapers. But it doesn’t come easily, and it doesn’t come free.” It is increasingly apparent, he said, that newspapers must make long-­term investments in editorial content that arc not immediately cost-­justifiable – but will have long-term benefit. He listed these as primary ingredients in a newspaper’s quality: 

  1. We are specific to our own set of readers. We “belong” to them.
  2. There are things for lots of different readers. Our readership is a coalition of special-interest groups
  3. We make things easy to find and to read. Consistency and packaging arc especially important. 
  4. A good newspaper is compelling and personal. “Readers have no obligation to take the rubber band off. It’s easier to watch TV.”
  5. We involve our readers, and help them tell their stories.
  6. Professionalism is painstaking attention to detail.

There was one page on the potential of computers, at least when it comes to circulation, to help newspapers understand their market and where their subscribers live.

The booklet about the conference has recommendations are well past their “sell by” date. The marketplace has upended advertising and circulation revenue streams. And that left many newspaper readers, or the remaining newspaper readers, high and dry.

Malofiej Infografia Awards, 1994

In 1994 I was a judge at the 2nd annual Malofiej Awards for Infographics, which were organized by the Spanish chapter of the Society for News Design (SND-E) for accomplishments in journalistic infographics. The awards were given each March in Pamplona, Spain.
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The awards are named for Argentine designer Alejandro Malofiej, who made simple and creative graphics.[6]

The Malofiej were an essential reference for their prestige and drawing power. The Awards, considered to be the Pulitzers for infographics, the professional workshop “Show, Don’t Tell!” and the Conference in Pamplona annually bring together the best infographics artists from media (newspapers, magazines, agencies) from around the world.

On October 1, 2021, the organizers announced that the awards would be paused “while we open a period of reflection to think about how to continue with them in the future.”

The organizers published a book with the award winners.  One of the questions asked of the judges was “How do you see the present and the future of infographics?” Here is my answer:

Informational graphics use in newspapers is coming to an important junction. One direction is to continue on our present course, with much energy, effort and space spent on large, complicated and time ­consuming graphics. The other way would call for a re-examination of the overall purpose and value of presenting information via a graphic or visual form. I’m worried that if we continue on our present path, the fundamental strength and value of graphics will be diluted and devalued as editors, facing increased pressures to make the most effective use of space, will rebel against the often-excessive “mega­graphic”. A more optimistic view would have editors – visual and written- jointly decide on the most effective presentation method and the more appropriate use of resources, which include staff and space.