Changing (and not changing) with the times
I spent much of last week listening to and talking with readers. Well, I spend much of every week doing that, but even more so last week, and I will do it again this week and next week as part of some research we're doing.
They said good things about the paper, but I'm going to talk about their wants here. So far, the only consistency has been that people want more: more sports, more local, national and world news, more commentary, more business coverage, more good news, etc. They don't agree on what they want within that "more." Some want more high school sports; others don't care about the teenagers, they want more pro sports, and it doesn't matter if the team is here or in Toronto.
"The front page is for news of the world, not some feature story about someone from Greensboro," one woman told me. Others said that the front page was too angry, with nothing but bad news from around the world. "Can't you find something good to write about?" A couple wanted more syndicated columnists and fewer local ones. One person wanted just the opposite.
These are 7-day subscribers, the loyal folks we depend upon to support and nourish the business. And as I speak with them, I think about our purposeful moves to emphasize local and downplay commodity news, that content that is omnipresent and easily accessible elsewhere. This is content these readers are telling me they want. When we eliminate it, we annoy them. "Yes, I know that I can get that on the computer," one man told me. "I don't want to get it on the computer. I pay you to give it to me in my paper, they way I always have."
I didn't have -- and still don't -- have a good response to that.
I once asked the Readership Institute folks how to avoid upsetting longtime readers who don't want you to mess with the content they've grown to use and appreciate. Their response was something to the effect of: "You can't. But they've already got the newspaper habit. You're not going to break them of it. Let them grumble. You've got to focus on developing that newspaper habit in the people who don't have it."
That sort of tough love arrogance bothered me at the time -- disregard the wishes of the most loyal -- and bothers me still. I don't mind upsetting readers who don't like what you've published. But I am unsettled when readers are upset because you aren't publishing enough.
I'm aware there is a revolution going on, and we are changing with it. I also am a believer in the "genius of the and." Yet, as we devote more resources online and beef up our local report, simple math requires that we must squeeze out items that seem to have worn out their welcome. We make more strategic choices on how and what we cover.
But I still search for the right answer to the question: "I used that. Why did you change?"
** As a footnote, and because a few mentioned bias in the news, I add this: Occasionally, readers mistakenly assumed that letters to the editor reflected the paper's position. One person said that our editorial on the Imus statement showed our liberal bias. (We've taken no such position.) Another said our constant anti-war editorials did that, too. (The editorial board, embracing the importance of editorials on local issues, has rarely written about the war.)
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Perhaps we're different, but in my family, one of us reads the paper every day and one of us gets 99% of our info online. Different strokes... but what I want is something online that's not in the paper (and vice versa for what he wants). If the print people are addicted, then good - and go for new features judiciously.
But we onliners are a different lot. I want something (now!) that is unique to the online experience (you could argue that photos do that, I suppose). What about
* online-only local and/or national columnists?
* online reviews of online issues (talk about what the blogs are talking about)?
* a changing home page (the beloved "" tag)
* a daily online feature? (meaning: something to do with being online)
* an online tech column? (goodness knows, I've been asking long enough :)
* a clickable map with stories linked to it?
* homepage RSS display so I go the NR homepage to see updates? (that one is way to easy)
* a "river" of news (credit: Dave Winer) so I can read the news on my phone with judicious text ads if required but not desired?
The print afficiando here adds these things that he wants in the print paper:
* More home page stories, some local, some national (teasers, he says)
* A real 'last page' of international news that isn't 80% ads most days
* We ignore the stickers, btw, he says
* More investigative reporting of local issues
* A regular city council agenda and follow-up
* He wants more comics; I read mine through RSS
He doesn't want to go online to read the NR news and doesn't get the afternoon email. I'm more "I want it now" in the news information department.
BTW, why don't you opine as to your personal position re: the entire Imus thing in your blog?
Posted on April 15, 2007 11:39 AM
You point out an interesting dilemma. After resisting, then embracing, online news, like many newspapers, you have an active Web site and a newspaper. You have online readers and print readers. That should work out great. But it seems that many newspapers are trying to get print readers to get their news online and trying to get onlne readers to go back to newspapers. That seems backwards. Why not targt the audiences with what they want? Give the online readers the best Web site possible, and the traditional print readers the most traditional newspaper possible.
Posted on April 15, 2007 1:19 PM
How about publishing two papers: News and Record Classic and News and Record 2.0?
Posted on April 15, 2007 2:54 PM
There is a big issue being overlooked at the N&R that your readers are interested in - the arts and critical reviews of the arts - performing, visual, etc. We are interested in the jewels that exist right here in the area - we want to know what's hot and what's not! Maybe we are too quiet and don't speak up enough but trust me there are lots of readers interested in this. I hear about it frequently. I hope you will adjust your focus - reading about the arts around the world is nice but much more intriguing would be a good review of a play, concert, art show, etc. I challenge the lovers of the arts to speak up and let the paper know your thoughts on this.
Posted on April 15, 2007 4:34 PM
Thanks, all. Sue, we're tending to some of your suggestions, but probably won't do others. I don't opine on Imus because that's not what this blog is for. Even if it were, I probably wouldn't because I couldn't add anything new to the discussion. For the record, as a believer in karma, I think you reap what you sow. He did.
Cubby, we'll probably do exactly as you suggest. We're moving in that direction now. Still, the question remains, how do you produce "more" in the newspaper when "more" means more of everything?
Gail, I wish you were right about the large number of people who want to read a review but I don't think that you are. I believe we do a lot to promote the arts in this community.
Posted on April 16, 2007 8:54 AM
Ha, I thought with your opening paragraph that you were talking about the church!
For me, there's still nothing like real paper and print.
Well, you can't win in the breaking news department, but you can in covering well what is not covered well on line and on TV.
I feel for you - you're up against immediate access to all news via internet and cable, short attention spans, and busier and busier people. I wish you well. I still try to read my N&R everyday.
Joel
Posted on April 16, 2007 11:11 AM