Easier said than done
Some newspaper provocateurs suggest eliminating "commodity" content from the paper. You know, those features that readers can get from, like, anywhere. The idea is that newspapers can replace commodity content with unique local content. It's the reason we've moved away from letting national and international news dominate our front page; that's news people get any and everywhere.
Now comes the daily stock listings. Under the heading, "Stock tables have to go," Jeff Jarvis makes the case: Consider the economics: What is the net profit per subscriber? How many of those subscribers need to cancel their subscriptions before you lose more money than you would if you killed the stock tables? The truth is that you'll likely lose only a handful of subscribers. But even if you lost hundreds, I have no doubt that the consequent loss of circulation revenue and audience to support your ad rates would be far less than the savings you'll recognize from killing the tables. That is the essential business calculation of this exercise.
I buy that, especially in academic arguments. Of course, on Wednesday we moved from academic discussion to cold, hard reality when we sharply reduced our stock listings. Since, I have listened to caller after caller upset with us and, worse, disappointed with us. (We upset readers often because we report news that provokes them in some fashion. But I hate disappointing them because we've failed to serve them.)
We have offered limited listings and are adjusting those based on reader requests. We are also encouraging folks to use our new online financial tool. Still, there remain thousands of people in the Triad without computers. (I may have talked to them all in the past three days.) They've made it clear that we've removed content of value to them, and it's content that they may end up getting from a competitor. They aren't asking for more local news coverage or more business coverage. They're asking for more stocks.
Newspapers make their marks in their communities by publishing compelling journalism that readers can't get anywhere else. It may be tough-minded investigations; it may be honor roll lists. That's our future. That's why our front page doesn't look much like the other big papers in the state. That's why we're emphasizing journalism of consequence. That's why we're pushing further into citizen journalism. Reallocating our resources away from commodity news into other areas helps us provide unique content.
Yet, we've nurtured a habit in the lives of many of our readers by providing stock reports. And while that number may be diminishing, we're asking those people to break that habit and create a new one, possibly one that doesn't involve us. Jarvis notes, and I agree, that this move will have a ultimately positive impact on the company's finances and on our journalism. But this has the temporary effect of pushing loyal readers away. And that isn't something that feels good.
Hard decisions.
The rest of the redesign, people like. I'll write about that in the next day or so.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
For what it's worth, I think you did the right thing with the stock tables. You had no choice, really.
You also probably did the right thing by bringing the New York Times folks back. Especially since the NYT put them behind the wall.
Posted on April 21, 2006 9:04 AM
People who rely on reading stock tables in a daily paper for information about an investment need to realize there are much better sources for much more complete information. The internet is only one such place.
You and Jarvis are right.
Posted on April 21, 2006 10:35 AM
John, I was in agreement with you about the stock tables. By coincidence, my in-laws were visiting last night, and my father-in-law, who is about 75, asked for my paper so he could look up his stocks. I told him the whole story and the reasoning behind what had been done. His reaction? The paper needs to understand that many of us old folks don't use the internet, and we are the ones that are more likely to be buying and reading the paper.
Sometimes it is hard to walk in the shoes of another person.
You may recall my previous objections to the Times; and was disappointed with its return. I hope that you got a cut-rate deal, and that its presence in the news sections will be sparse.
Posted on April 21, 2006 4:33 PM
I know this may be a generational thing and I hate to sound flip...but I'm totally confused by the "you need to understand that old folks don't use the Internet" argument.
Beyond the fact that there's nothing about a person's age that would in any way prevent them from using the Internet (my seveny-eight old grandfather has been online for more than a decade) the argument seems to assume that people, institutions and in this case businesses who have accepted that the Internet isn't some sort of passing fad need to conduct themselves as though it was never invented for the benefit of people who choose to live as though there have been no technological advancements since the early 1970s.
A few years ago, when I was interning at the N&R, the paper cancelled the comic strip "Mark Trail." For days afterward the calls flowed in - mostly from angry older people. I had to field one of these and, thinking I was helping the caller out, I said: "Actually - I can give you a website where you can read the comic for free every day, or even have it e-mailed to you..."
The caller gave me a disgusted huff and, as though he was letting me know he didn't do heroin, said: "Son, I don't mess around with that Internet..." and then hung up.
All I could think was: "Well, at least in this situation...you'd be better off if you did, wouldn't you?"
Posted on April 21, 2006 5:32 PM