“Newspaper Industry” Items

Technology Shifting, a View from 1999

In February 1999, I presented a forward-looking view of how technology could reshape the media industry. Speaking at the Interactive Newspapers Conference in Atlanta, I emphasized strategic use of technology, organizational culture, and evolving audience behaviors over hype or novelty. More than two decades later, many of my insights still resonate. This was the second of two speech I gave at the conference.  [The first can be found here.]

Here’s a summary of the technology speech transcript, created by AI

Content Strategy: “Author Once, Publish Many”

Finberg introduced a philosophy that still guides media workflows today: create content once and distribute it across multiple platforms. At Central Newspapers (CNI), this approach was powered by a database-driven system that fed content to print, web, fax, and even early mobile devices. The goal was efficiency and flexibility in an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

This strategy formed the foundation for today’s multi-platform publishing models, where newsrooms serve content to websites, apps, newsletters, and social media from a central source.

Technology as a Cultural Change Agent

Finberg argued that technology alone doesn’t transform organizations—culture does. For CNI, success meant not only installing systems, but also ensuring physical and digital infrastructure enabled collaboration. He pointed out how simple disconnects, like incompatible email systems, often held back real innovation.

His approach highlights a lasting truth: real transformation requires internal alignment and thoughtful change management.

Building Engagement with “Sticky” Applications

Rather than simply counting clicks, CNI aimed to boost engagement through what Finberg called “sticky apps”—features that encouraged users to return. Examples included personalized job agents, deep local sports coverage, and cobranding partnerships with other news outlets.

The idea was to deliver lasting value to users, moving beyond raw traffic to deeper loyalty and longer visits—metrics that are now standard in digital newsrooms.

Classifieds in Decline, Innovation in Response

Finberg was frank about the threat facing newspaper classifieds: “We operate on the principle that Classifieds is going away.” In response, CNI developed alternative digital products such as Work Avenue, Virtual Job Fairs, and HomeFair.com—each built around services and user experience rather than traditional advertising.

This proactive shift toward diversified, digital-first revenue streams foreshadowed the industry’s broader pivot in the 2000s.

Local Strength Through Strategic Partnerships

Finberg also emphasized the power of collaboration. He highlighted niche content sites, like “Indiana’s Game” for basketball fans, that partnered with other local papers for shared content and branding. Likewise, Arizona Central’s joint tourism site with the state showed how media organizations could pool resources to better serve users.

These partnerships created richer experiences and extended reach—long before “content syndication” became a digital norm.

Search as a Guided Experience

In a beta project with WaveShift, Finberg previewed a curated search engine that prioritized relevant, editor-approved results. The tool allowed users to explore external content without leaving the publisher’s site—supporting both user satisfaction and retention.

This approach reflected an early understanding of user-centered design and editorial curation, still central to quality digital journalism today.

A Forward-Facing Mindset

Finberg concluded his talk with a mix of humor and urgency. His key message: success depends on delivering real value to users while staying agile in the face of disruption. Technology should serve strategy—not the other way around.

Even now, as media organizations continue to evolve, his 1999 roadmap remains a reminder that the fundamentals—audience, content, culture—still matter most.

Coming Media Industry Storm, 1999 Speech

In February 1999, I gave a speech at the 10th Annual Interactive Newspapers Conference in Atlanta. At that time, the newspaper industry was still clinging to its traditional revenue pillars—print circulation, display ads, and, most crucially, classifieds. However, to me, there was no doubt that those pillars were now built upon shifting sands.

I gave the speech in my role as Director of Technology and Information Strategies for Central Newspapers. I wanted to issue a warning that time was short to hope that changes were evolutionary not revolutionary. Looking back, I’m particularly proud that I said that the internet was a fundamentally a different medium, not an extension of an existing medium.

I asked Chat GPT to read the transcript of the speech and write a post. [The full transcript is available here.] This is what AI wrote:

Drawing from his experience launching online ventures like ArizonaCentral.com and HomeFair.com, Howard Finberg projected a not-so-distant future in which classifieds—the cash cow for local papers—would erode significantly. Industry research was already signaling a potential 7% loss in bottom-line revenue. “Look around the room,” Finberg said. “Seven percent of us won’t be here next year unless other things happen.”

What followed was a clear-eyed, sometimes humorous, always practical exploration of how newspapers needed to reinvent themselves—organizationally, culturally, and strategically—for the internet era.

A New Business, Not a New Department

Finberg’s core message was that digital wasn’t just an add-on. It was a fundamentally different medium with different economics, content, and user behavior. Drawing a comparison to how early television mimicked radio before finding its own identity, he urged media leaders to stop thinking of the web as an “extension of print.”

Instead, he proposed a hybrid model he called Integrated Independence. The idea was to combine centralized resources (like shared technology platforms and content services) with localized control. Local newsrooms would have the freedom to tailor digital strategies to their communities while benefiting from corporate-level efficiencies. “Nobody knows the local markets better than the local publishers,” Finberg reminded the audience.

Breaking the Assembly Line

Finberg also called for deep structural and cultural change within newsrooms. The traditional assembly-line workflow—where one department handed off content to another in rigid steps—wasn’t going to cut it. He advocated for flatter hierarchies, shared knowledge, and team-driven processes where journalists were empowered to collaborate, experiment, and respond to audience needs in real-time.

One visual metaphor stood out: the future journalist not as a solitary reporter with a notebook, but a nimble, multi-skilled “first-on-the-scene” storyteller—equipped with audio, video, and digital tools, capturing stories from the ground up.

Talent, Risk, and Retention

Finberg was equally blunt about the staffing crisis on the horizon. Starting salaries in journalism couldn’t compete with emerging web companies offering equity and entrepreneurial freedom. “We face a real brain drain,” he warned. His solution? Pay strategically for “Hot Jobs,” break HR molds when needed, and—most importantly—offer employees the chance to learn, move, and grow. “We (must) reward failure,” he said, “by not penalizing it—and by encouraging the next try.”

A Call to Look Beyond

Perhaps the most striking element of Finberg’s talk was his push for the industry to stop looking only inward. “We need to start attending conferences outside our field,” he said. “Broadcasting, cable, tech—we have to see what others are doing.” It was a call for curiosity, humility, and horizon scanning—a mindset that still resonates today.

More than two decades later, many of the ideas in this talk—content re-usability (“author once, publish many”), cross-platform journalism, digital-first thinking, and agile teams—have become core to modern media strategy. But in 1999, this was revolutionary thinking.

Finberg’s presentation wasn’t just a roadmap. It was a challenge. A reminder that digital disruption wasn’t just coming—it had already arrived.

Changing Needs of Newspaper Readers, 1979

In 1979, Ruth Clark, noted newspaper researcher, authored a thoughtful report for the American Society of Newspaper Editors titled “Changing Needs of Changing Readers.” Commissioned during a time of declining readership, the report explored a question that still resonates: why were people turning away from newspapers It was based on focus groups across 12 U.S. and Canadian cities and uncovered a subtle but growing disconnect between editors and readers. The issue wasn’t just about what was in the paper—it was about how people felt about their newspapers. (Summary written by AI)

The Social Contract Was Fraying

Readers no longer saw editors as all-knowing gatekeepers. In fact, many questioned why faceless editors still dictated the “important” news. What they really wanted was relevance: stories that spoke to their personal lives, their neighborhoods, their struggles. “I live in one world—they live in another,” one reader lamented.

From Mandarins to Humans

The report described a “reader-editor gap” that went far beyond content. Readers wanted to see and feel the people behind the bylines, a shift toward what we might now call personalized journalism. The cold objectivity of traditional reporting began to feel alienating in a media world increasingly influenced by charismatic TV anchors and talk radio hosts.

Rise of the “Me” Generation

The study captured a cultural pivot from civic obligation to personal fulfillment. Readers didn’t just want to be informed—they wanted to be helped. They craved guidance on how to live well, manage money, understand relationships, and yes, have fun. Traditional hard news still mattered, but only when balanced with accessible, emotionally resonant content.

Format Fatigue

Even then, readers complained newspapers were too hard to navigate. They wanted summaries, indexes, modular content, and less repetitive reporting. One participant nailed it: “I can wait till the story is over and then find out what is really important.”

The Real Lesson: Listen More

The report didn’t offer a silver bullet—but it validated a method: direct, honest conversations with readers. Focus groups were a prototype for what we now know as audience engagement strategies. For a print industry historically rooted in one-way communication, this was radical.

Though this report is nearly half a century old, its themes resonate in today’s digital landscape. The need for human connection, relevance, transparency, and flexibility continues. As media evolved from analog to digital, the core need hasn’t changed: people want their stories told with care, by people who understand them. Readers want to see themselves in the media they are using.

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.