Mike Maisel

Newsday et al: Too Little, Too Late

The concept of paid content makes sense, but newspapers have already loused it up before they even try to get it off the ground. (And I would definitely take the UNDER on that succeeding.)

First, content has been free (mostly) for so long that it has become considered an entitlement. It is difficult to charge for what was once free. The airlines did it with drinks and snacks, but there are far fewer of them and they are used to moving collectlvely on things like pricing, etc. But, newspapers are still run like Mom and Pop shops (albeit with massive debt) and trying to get that industry together on ANYTHING is like herding cats. (If they had any industry cohesiveness, they would have been on the line for a bailout, like the auto and banking industries.)

Second, is the systematic dumbing and watering down of the core product. You cannot layoff journalists, share content, combine bureaus, make greater use of syndie material and expect to maintain high standards, or even interest. Chasing USA Today homogenizes newspapers and does NOT serve the public well. I observed years ago, that if you blindfolded me and dropped me in any enclosed shopping mall in the country, I would not be able to tell you what city I was in. Now, if you cover the masthead of any major market daily, I think the same challenge would face me.

Newspapers 'Rightsizing'? More Like Frightsizing

What newspapers forgot is that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. What is happening now is the result of the papers burying their heads in the sand, as internet usage, functionality an content grew. This is the same thing they did when OCC started doing online employment ads, which later was purchased by the then Monsterboard and we know how that played out.

What's scary about this (frightsizing is a well-chosen phrase), is now they are messing with their core business -- journalism. It is what defines a newspaper and once that line becomes blurred (as more papers will become more like each other) they will put their core readership at risk.

I've often heard CEOs are working 1-3 fiscal years ahead of their company. Apparently newspaper CEOs didn't hear that, too.

The Latest Nail In Newspapers' Coffin: Outsourcing

How can it make sense to make cuts that will directly impact the product, potentially weakening it? So many papers are making just these kinds of cuts now, and these will only serve to lock them into a death sprial. If readers are deserting you because they find other media more suitable, the better course would seem to be to remake your product tailored to evolving media consumption tastes, but not to poke more holes in the already leaky boat.

In announcing personnel cuts of 22% (Web editorial staff was not part of this, by the way), Editor Cliff Teutsch told staff the cuts "add a sober reality for all as we continue to remake the paper for a September launch." See the key words there, "remake the paper."

Maybe it's just spin, but remaking your product to be more relevant, more accessible, more user-friendly just makes a lot more sense than commoditizing it by outsourcing core journalism functions or dictating arbitrary editorial to advertising ratios. Or maybe, I'm just too much a fan of literacy.