Yellow journalism and selling newspapers
Not a week goes by when someone doesn't accuse us of "trying to sell newspapers." As if that's a bad thing.
When we published a photograph on the Sports front of a security officer spraying mace into a crowd of fighting N.C. A&T and Central football players. When we wrote about a former private school teacher being charged with having sex with a student. When we publish a photo of a homeless African boy sniffing glue on World Poverty Day. When we publish virtually any story about Americans dying in the Middle East.
People refer to "selling newspapers" with disgust, as if we're not supposed to want people to buy our paper.
It is time to drive a stake through the heart of this cliche. It may have been relevant back in the day of Pulitzer and Hearst, but those days of yellow journalism are pretty much gone from traditional newspapers, having moved other places.
Single copy sales are driven by two things: What prospective buyers can see above the fold on the front page; and coverage of some event that they already know will be in the paper, such as a story about their favorite sports team. Oh, wait. Three things. When we cut the price of the single copy paper, people buy because they can't resist a bargain.
What sells and what doesn't?
* Disasters -- the geographically closer to the Triad the better -- sell papers. Government scandals don't.
* Sensational stories involving sex, murder and/or celebrities sells papers. Think Britney, Lohan, OJ, Phil Spector. Tough to play up as we don't have that many local celebrities doing scandalous things. Chris Daughtry is still here; Fantasia fled to Charlotte and Broadway.
* Intensely local community news -- read about someone you know --- sells papers. International news doesn't.
* Carolina winning sells papers. State and ECU winning doesn’t (here, at least). Don't shoot the messenger, all you ABC (Anybody But Carolina) fans. It is what it is.
* Advertising -- the Toys R Us Christmas catalogue! -- sells papers.
Actually, if we were just "trying to sell newspapers," we wouldn't write about the candidates for city council. We wouldn't write about the latest proposal to fund a new Eastern High School. We probably wouldn't write about the drought, unless it was to reveal the names and addresses of the water scofflaws. Most serious policy issues aren't big drivers of newspaper sales. We write them because they are important for the community to know about.
With the decline of mass media and the rise of individual media, "sensationalizing" the news has less and less effect in selling newspapers. People can go online for news of disasters, of celebrity scandal, and, to some extent, for intensely local news. Expect that to spread and deepen. Perhaps that contributes to the reputation that newspapers are boring: Too much government stuff, not enough sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
We want to sell newspapers by publishing unique stories and photos that matter and will help improve the community. Some days we're better at it than others, but the value of the information will always trump the sensational.
Personally, I want to sell newspapers. Giving readers information they can use is why I got into journalism. (Well, that and because it's fun.) Besides, people who buy the paper keep us in business.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Just an observation on this topic.
Couldn't you have sold more papers Saturday with a bold, front page headline of "US Marshals Service Files Complaint Against Greensboro Police"?
Instead you issue three small paragraphs on page B4.
It is highly unusual for the US Marshals Office to file a charge of this nature and it's buried on B4?
How does the importance of this story compare to the previous articles on the police department under David Wray that was written by Lorraine Ahearn and published under bold, front page headlines?
I believe your words above state, "but the value of the information will always trump the sensational."
This post is not meant as an insult to your paper but an honest open request for an answer.
Posted on October 22, 2007 12:52 PM
We had no further information about the charge on Friday. We also have no evidence that we can publish that it is related to the Wray case.
Besides, we had this story to help us sell papers. :)
Posted on October 22, 2007 1:05 PM
John:
Isn't it also true that single-copy sales are a fairly small proportion of total circulation? So even if you were running stories to bolster sales, it wouldn't make much of a dent--the vast majority of papers go to people who already are subscribed.
That said, I agree: The idea is to sell papers. Nothing wrong with that!
Posted on October 22, 2007 1:57 PM
In our case, it's between 10-15% depending on the day of the week. Interestingly, single copy sales are a double-edged sword. Increasing single copy sales is a good thing, except when you see a concomitant decrease in 7-day subscriptions, meaning that people are reading less, rather than more.
And you're right that you have to be careful to balance appealing to the single copy buyer and not over-alienate the regular subscriber.
Posted on October 22, 2007 2:25 PM
One of the things we learned a few years ago when some guys from guardian.co.uk visited our newsroom was the thinking that goes into the British national newspapers. There are only a few, they are very competitive, and their circulation is about 80% single-copy -- almost a mirror image of ours. So their front pages have to hook readers in a way that's almost (and some days, more than almost) desperate.
Posted on October 22, 2007 2:40 PM
One of the things we learned a few years ago when some guys from guardian.co.uk visited our newsroom was the thinking that goes into the British national newspapers. There are only a few, they are very competitive, and their circulation is about 80% single-copy -- almost a mirror image of ours. So their front pages have to hook readers in a way that's almost (and some days, more than almost) desperate.
Posted on October 22, 2007 2:41 PM
"And you're right that you have to be careful to balance appealing to the single copy buyer and not over-alienate the regular subscriber."
And yet your recent changes are driven by design -- a weak attempt to reach out desperately to the single copy buyer, whom you foolishly believe will be lured by "something shiny."
"(B)ut those days of yellow journalism are pretty much gone from traditional newspapers, having moved other places."
Nope. You and others are still very much locked into the philosophy of yellow journalism. Had much Paris Hilton on your front page? Or Lindsay Lohan?
Posted on October 22, 2007 6:27 PM
Um, have they, Wenalway? I'll admit I'm not a daily subscriber, but I'm fairly certain the N&R hasn't had many Lindsay Lohan A1's. Or any at all, really.
Also, as a designer, I bristled a bit when you dismissed my career so off-hand. Good editorial design is about more than making things "shiny." It's about presenting information in a clear and engaging way. I think that's vital to good journalism. Like it or not, a Pulitzer-caliber article isn't going to get read if it looks like a wall of text.
Posted on October 23, 2007 11:17 AM
"Good editorial design is about more than making things "shiny." It's about presenting information in a clear and engaging way."
So when do you plan to start? I see a lot of pages muddled by out-of-control design, and I've had the misfortune of sitting in a lot of news meetings where people were planning "the look" of Page 1 before they had read a word of copy or looked at a photo. I suspect the same thing happens at the N&R. I see where Anderson, S.C., had to correct a huge headline gaffe; somehow I suspect more time was spent on "the look" rather than the content. And I doubt anything will change.
"Like it or not, a Pulitzer-caliber article isn't going to get read if it looks like a wall of text."
And the chanting begins. Let us know when you have some facts to back that up. Until then, bookstores will keep running out receipts for books that are many pages of "walls of text." Some of those books are much less interesting than a Pulitzer-caliber article, but they have an audience. (Those readers generally haven't been treated like morons who need to have "something shiny" to lure them.) So I'd say your "theory" plus a couple bucks might get you a small cup of coffee at said bookstore.
Posted on October 24, 2007 12:38 AM
Continued observation on your topic of "selling newspapers" to John Robinson:
Wouldn't Sandy Carmany's support of using tax payer's money to obtain land from your family (at a rate above appraisal) cause a conflict of interest with your paper's planned endorsement of Carmany on Friday?
Posted on October 24, 2007 1:21 PM