“Newspaper Industry” Items

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.

Big City Newspaper: Chicago Tribune in 1975

The Chicago Tribune Marketing Department, sometime in 1975 [my guess] produced a guide to the newspaper for the educational services department of the company. It was a look, written for consumers [young ones] about how the Tribune was created — from reporter to editor to presses. The guide even had instructions on how to fold a newspaper page into a pressman’s hat. What’s nice about this guide is the photographs of so many of the people I remember working with. [And it does have a picture of me looking at a picture page.]

The Tribune at this time was publishing both morning and afternoon editions.  We called it the 24-Hour Tribune.  There were even t-shirts. Here’s a bit about that unique time:

In 1974, the Chicago Tribune became a 24-hour newspaper with fresh editions morning, afternoon and evening. The shift from being a morning newspaper to the24-hour publication cycle meant that The Tribune was available whenever a reader wanted it.

The publishing cycle begins in late afternoon with the Green Streak edition which contains late stock market quotations. Next off the press is the Midwest edition, designed primarily for circulation outside Chicago and suburbs.

The Three Star Morning Final comes next–it’s the edition you’ll find delivered to your doorstep in the mornings. The Four Star Morning Sports Final follows; you’ll find it on the newsstands in the morning with the night’s sport results. The Five Star Morning Turf Final is available later in the morning. Completing the 24-hour publication cycle is the afternoon 7 Star Final for afternoon home delivery customers and afternoon newsstand sales.

The publisher at the time of publication was Stan Cook; the editor was Clayton Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick was the person who hired me in 1972. There a nice picture of Bill Jones, one of the best editors at the paper during my tenure. Jones, who became managing editor, died way too early at age 43.

If you want a look at what it took to produce a daily newspaper, this is a good guide. For me, it is fond memories.

PAFET Operating Committee, April 1996

PAFET Operating Committee meeting and agenda. Held in Phoenix, AZ. Includes documents about “Elect to Connect,” a project involving Newspapers in Education.

The NIE Project was initially established as an experiment in conducting joint development within PAFET. This area was selected in part based on the existing relationships (and history of collaboration) among PAFET NIE representatives. After several discussions, the group decided to focus the project on jointly developing curriculum to support the 1996 Elections. The curriculum would contain both a print and “new media” component (e.g. online/Internet, diskette, and/or CD-ROM).

Looking to the Future: 1986 to 2001

In the past, journalism conventions serving management and editors, such as the Associated Press Managing Editors conference, were major events.  Hundreds of participants, dozens of panels and speeches.  So important that the APME published what the called the “Red Book.”  This was a record of the proceedings so those who could not attend would learn what was discussed.

In 1987, the Red Book reported on a panel held in Cincinnati, OH, on “Newspapers After 2001.”  The panel was tasked to look ahead 15 years.  Among the participants:

  • James K. Batten, president, Knight-Ridder, Inc.
  • Louis D. Boccardi, president and general manager, The Associated Press
  • John J. Curley, president and chief executive officer. Gannett Newspapers
  • Katherine W. Fanning, editor, Christian Science Monitor
  • Jeff Greenfield, media critic and columnist, ABC
  • James Hoge, president, New York Daily News
  • C.K. McClatchy, president, McClatchy Newspapers
  • Burl Osborne, president, Dallas Morning News
  • Eugene C. Patterson, chairman and chief executive officer, Times Publishing Company, St. Petersburg, Fla.
  • William O. Taylor, chairman and chief executive officer. Boston Globe
  • Chris Urban, Urban and Associates 

Reading over this edited transcript of the discussion, I was struck how little the panel got right. In fact, I think most of them missed the speeding “technology bus” that was about to crash into their newsprint based business and scatter their profits and employees to the wind. There was discussion about the declining readership — one panelist suggest the industry encourage literacy — and the fragmented advertising market. There were a couple of notable mentions of technology.  Here’s one from Kay Fanning:

We’re being increasingly bombarded by trivia and through the progress of technology it will get worse and worse. With all the world coming to our back door in terms of satellite communications and transportation, the link-up of the global stock market, all aspects of computer networking, newspapers will need a content that offers the citizen a pathway through this hail of trivia. That content will require more substance, more quality, offer more understanding rather than just a lot of information. I believe in the simple bromide of the better mousetrap. If we have a quality that is relevant to the citizens and to the public interest we can easily raise the numbers from 40 to 60 percent. 

I did like the comments from John Curley about improving the visuals of newspapers to make them more appealing:

Presentation is part of it too. Color, graphics, and our ability to do more in that area will be important. I don’t mean to pick on the Cincinnati Inquirer, since we own it, but in yesterday’s paper we went 11 pages in the Life Section without a graphic or photo. and a lot of the contents suggested that there could have been some there. I don’t think that is atypical of most newspapers, and it’s a weakness in a lot of our newspapers too.

Curley was the first editor of USA Today, hence he knew about color and graphics. USA Today was launched four years earlier, in 1982. in 1988, the American Press Institute had a major design seminar looking at the future of newspapers. It was called Design 2000.  Details are elsewhere on this site.  Lots of graphics and color in those prototype newspapers.

TV News’ Future

Also at the convention was Lawrence Grossman, president of NBC News. He gave a talk on “Television News After 2001.” He was sort right when he said:

My thesis is that if you look 15 years ahead to the year 2001, it will be much like what we see now in television news, just as when you look back to 1970, television news was basically like what you’re seeing now.

But take that out a few more years and he was very, very wrong.  He got a few things right.  It was an interesting read.

Electronic Photo Workshop, 1990

Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, digital photography equipment was rare [and expensive].  I’m not just talking about cameras, but also all the equipment needed to process those digital files into a format that could be used in daily newspaper production. Learning to use these digital photographic tools was the goals the National Press Photographers Association‘s Electronic Photo Workshop.

In November 1990, the EPW was in Tempe, AZ and I served as “Executive Editor.”  The real work, however, done by the workshop co-chairs: John Cornell, Newsday, and Bill Hodge, Long Beach Press Telegram. There were more than 90 participants [see page two of the PDF] and more than two dozen vendors, including Adobe and Apple. 

The published work from the conference was a 32-page tabloid that has photos and stories about life in Arizona. Each story used different combinations of equipment.

I liked what I wrote for the introduction to the publication:

This newspaper is living classroom experi­ment. Our purpose is not to highlight one program, camera, or other piece of hard­ware against its competition.

To the contrary, we wanted to bring to­gether the technologi­cal marvels of our time with the trained eye of journalists using cam­eras. Only by explor­ing technology will we learn how best to use the computer software and hardware that have greatly influenced our newsrooms.

Readers need to !mow of the almost superhuman efforts undertaken by both vendors and participants to publish this newspaper, and the great sense of pride in attempting to capture images that communicate information.. Despite the lure of the hardware and software, the primary purpose of the pages produced here was to communicate.

…

Content was our overall goal. Content married with technology.

There are some other articles that are worth a historical read.

Social Contract with Readers, 1978

The American Society of Newspaper Editors asked Ruth Clark to look at the issues between readers and editors.  She refers to this as the “new social contract.” The study, done in 1978, discussed one of the most important issues, behavior influences and “the changing relationship between readers and their newspapers.”  From the summary:

We know very little about the subtle forces that seem to be weakening the emotional ties of many readers, making newspapers less wanted, less needed or, in extreme cases, resented. Analyzing the chemistry of individual relations is difficult enough; explaining group attitudes is even more challenging.

The present pilot study is an attempt, nevertheless, to provide some preliminary insights into what might be called “The New Social Contract between Newspaper Editors and Readers.” It is an effort to deepen our understanding of findings that have been emerging from major reader surveys of the Newspaper Readership Project.  As a by-product, it is also a demonstration of techniques that editors can use  to establish a direct dialogue with readers and non-readers as part of a continuing search for new ways to increase newspaper reading.

The work was commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and funded by the Readership Council. It was carried out by Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., under the direction of Ruth Clark.

More that 120 regular readers, occasional readers, and non-readers were interview­ed in informal focus group sessions in 12 different daily newspaper markets, both competitive and non-competitive, chain and non-chain. As a special feature, editors not only observed all the sessions but participated part of the time. 

The Future: Embracing Change

In 1999, the Society for News Design published a handbook for editors about dealing with pagination and technology. I was asked to write a chapter about “the future” and embracing the changes new technology would bring.

Some of the things I got right:

  • Working at home, even doing newspaper design
  • Always connected to a network
  • Using databases to edit and present content
  • Constant feedback on what consumers are reading

Here’s the opening to the chapter:

Firing up her monitor with a verbal “log on” command, Kate gets ready for the daily meeting with her fellow editors and a managing editor at The Republic.

Almost instantly, her monitor is on the “virtual network” and eight images of her co-workers start to appear. Three are at home; two are at remote or shared offices. One is on the road with his team covering a live event. The rest are at the paper’s head­quarters building.

After discussing reports from the teams that worked the previous “info cycles” – each cycle is four hours and there are teams working around the clock – Kate and her fellow editors start the business of producing material for The Republic.

She doesn’t have a computer in her house, only a 27-inch flat-screen that is about one inch thick and connected to The Network. Everything is on The Network: broadcast entertainment signals, written communications and voice messages.

It was a fun assignment.  Thank you, Olivia Casey.

Online Consumer Survey, 1992-1993

The Interactive Services Association, a trade organization for companies that marketed online services [think AOL or CompuServe] to consumers, issued several reports about consumer behavior online.  The 1993 report was done just before the wide-spread use of the World Wide Web.  Here are some of the highlights from the report:

  • Active users find that no one system meets their needs completely, and seek out unique content and bargain features. Three in five online survey respondents use at least two online systems, and more than half subscribe to three or more. This should strongly encourage innovations by incumbents and unique offerings by new entrants – right-minded efforts will be recognized and rewarded by a market that restlessly seeks out new and improved services. (More representative survey data suggest that only about one-fourth of all online users use more than one system.)
  • BBS’s appeal to online users on both price and content. About two-thirds of respondents use bulletin board systems (BBS’s) in addition to commercial online services. A third or more cite cost, software libraries for downloading, and communication with other users as the reasons for BBS’s appeal. Commercial services must continue to expand their offerings beyond these latter areas in order to justify their higher fees.
  • Software downloading, communicating with others who share interests, and getting PC-related help and information lead in popularity among applications. Respondents were asked to choose, from a listing of 10, the three applications they use most. In addition to the three just mentioned, exchanging electronic mail with friends and family, and obtaining current, general news round out the first tier of most-used applications. Systems and services competing for the core of today’s market must continue to advance their offerings in these areas.
  • Online use by multiple household members is substantial and growing. Regular use by other family members was reported by a full 42.5% of respondents, almost double last year’s percentage. In addition, a remarkable one in ten of all respondents report regular use by a child or children 12 or under. Although Prodigy did not participate in the survey, its use by multiple-system users may underlay this phenomenon – along with the growth of family-oriented features on other systems. This paradigmatic change, regardless of its source, presents a new opportunity to be addressed broadly by the industry.

In a couple of years, there would a report on how to build online services that were Web-based.