News-Record.com

Wondering who your audience is? Wondering how you fit in with others in terms of media use?

Check it out.

Are you an optimist? A leader? Dynamic? You read newspapers.

Are you open and full of yourself? Web.

Not dynamic, not open and not a leader, but full of bravado? TV all the way.

Optimists spend more time with newspapers than any other medium, and they probably recycle it, too. They're 51% more likely to go out of their way to purchase recycled goods, 34% more likely to drive a luxury car and 30% more likely to have bought four or more PCs in the past two years.

Dynamic people rank as the largest group of newspaper readers, followed by leaders.

So, if you're here, be proud of yourself!

Frank Barnako asks the question that I often get asked: What am I going to do at breakfast without a paper?

Putting aside the depressing fact that too many people have already answered that question, there is a positive response. Newspapers will be here for a long time to come. They will be more expensive, smaller and more focused (less mass) than they are today, but there are too many people just like Frank who can't imagine Cheerios and coffee without the smell of newsprint and the feel of ink.

I know because I have heard from a lot of them over the past few days who are rooting for newspapers to survive. I also know that many newspapers -- we're one -- still reach 40-50% of the homes in their primary markets.

I don't know how old Frank is, but I'm confident he'll have something that helps him get focused every morning for a long time.

Every six months, the Audit Bureau of Circulations reports newspaper circulation and gains and losses.

The results for the March reporting period are brutal. The first paragraph of the Editor & Publisher story: The Audit Bureau of Circulations released this morning the spring figures for the six months ending March 31, 2009, showing that the largest metros continue to shed daily and Sunday circulation -- now at a record rate.

When the percentage losses by many newspapers are in double digits, ours don't look so bad by comparison.

Daily -- 81,062 -- down 4%
Sunday -- 96,164 -- down 5%

Nationally, for all 395 newspapers reporting, daily circulation fell 7% and Sunday dropped 5%.

A brighter note: ABC also reported audience growth or decline when taking both print and online into account. For us, readership is at 413,900, an increase of 2%.

While disappointing, the circulation numbers aren't surprising, given what's been going on with technology, the market and consumer habits. That the Web site readership is up is encouraging. We know there are improvements we must make to meet your needs.

The Charlotte Observer has figures from selected larger newspapers in the Carolinas.

Related information:
Results for the nation's 25 largest newspapers.
Top 10 circulation gainers.
Top 25 audience gainers.
.

Seventy-four percent of the people in the Greensboro-Winston-High Point market read the newspaper in print or online. That's according to the latest Scarborough research. It's a tick below the average in the 81 markets Scarborough measures. For those "big city" enviers among us, it is also slightly better than Charlotte (72%) or Raleigh (71%).

The highest is 87% in Rochester, where it's so cold much of the year, what else are you going to do?

"This data begs the question: is the constant negative news feed on the industry warranted when newspapers are actually being read by three-fourths of the adult population? When you look at audience data, it seems irrational that advertisers are leaving newspapers because the numbers speak for themselves," said Gary Meo, senior vice president, print and digital media, Scarborough Research. "If you are an advertiser seeking to reach a large, upscale audience, newspapers are among the most effective media for doing so. Further, readership rates vary market-by-market and frequently defy local generalizations about declining audience. In order to obtain an accurate, in-depth portrait of newspaper health, in print and online, one needs to drill down to this local level."

So there.

A lot of people have the notion that the News & Record would be more successful if we were more conservative. Such an idea ignores what's going on with every newspaper in the country -- to say nothing of virtually every business in the country -- so that it can put a purely political face on the issues. It also ignores the political leanings of Guilford County, if you consider the voting patterns in the past several presidential campaigns.

When people would say that to me, I ask for evidence to support their reasoning. I hear the political preferences of the speaker, but not much supporting info. Honestly, none of our reader research supports it -- a person's political leanings, conservative or liberal, aren't significant motivators to buy a newspaper. (They may, however, be a reason to like or dislike it.) And, now that I think about it, I can't recall ever being told that we would be more successful if we were more liberal.

Anyway, now there is a report that the Wall Street Journal, the best known newspaper in the country with a conservative editorial page, is facing the same sorts of financial difficulties that every other newspaper is. It's even hitting Reader's Digest!

The problems newspapers face are so far removed from its editorial leanings that it's time to put that argument to rest.

Saturday update: Jeff Thomas at the Colorado Springs Gazette has similar thoughts. Comments take a different direction.

I asked our reader advisory group whether they read the promos at the top of the front page that direct them to other stories inside the newspaper. Virtually all 150 respondents said they did and they gave us good ideas about color, topic and type selections to improve.

Then there are the fiercely independent-minded ones who said they didn't need any help.

I'd rather find the articles and read them 'unannounced'.

*******************

I like to go through the paper and pick items I'm interested in. I think for myself and don't let others think for me.

******************

No. I just read all I am interested in.

Wanna get in on it? Sign up here.

If publishers take three audacious but absolutely essential steps, the print newspaper industry can save itself. All three of my suggestions are predicated on the simplest principle of capitalism: scarcity increases demand.

That's from a column written by Ted Rall. His prescription:

1. All newspapers shut down their Web sites
2. Aggressively enforce their copyright
3. Drop the wire services

I suspect this article will get great play at journalism Web sites. But there are at least two problems with this, and Rall is not alone among newspaper pundits in failing to address them.

First, one of the two core issues for papers is the scarcity of advertising revenue. Where is the revenue in his prescription? Will big box department stores and classified advertisers magically rush back to newsprint? Or will they continue to diversify their marketing efforts, using all the tools of the Internet? I think most of us can guess the answer to that.

Second, Rall assumes that people will start buying papers because they can't get to newspaper Web sites. There's little evidence to support that assumption, even as there is a great deal of wishin' and hopin.' Will people in their 20's who now get their news and information from dozens of places flock to newsprint when news Web sites are shuttered? Everything I read and observe suggests otherwise. And it ignores the competitive environment. There are many other sources of news out there, and with the shuttering of newspaper sites, many new ones will pop up.

There are plenty of opportunities for newspapers and journalism to grow in tandem with digital innovations. Going back to the good old days isn't one.

There's this idea that newspaper journalists are devoted newspapers readers. From the outside, it's intuitive. Many journalists work for newspapers. Newspapers print journalism. Journalists read journalism. Journalists read newspapers.

But it's been true for years that journalists are just like everyone else. They read whatever holds their interest...plus, if they are newspaper reporters, they read whatever they personally wrote that morning. It has been an open secret for the 30-plus years I've worked for newspapers that some of us do not read much of the paper at all.

That should have told us something then about what we were publishing, what people wanted and how people were spending their time. With the exception of a few places, it didn't.

There are certainly still some obvious lessons there. But the times have changed. Journalists here are younger than our "typical" newspaper reader. They are more wired, have different interests and many "new" ways of getting information. Like more and more people, that they don't actually read a newspaper from cover to cover doesn't mean they aren't informed. They use the Web. And, of course, they are in a newsroom that is focused on news for most of the day. They hear and talk about it so sometimes the newspaper delivered the next morning isn't as new to them as it is to the typical reader.

All that said, I'm thinking that on principle alone a newspaper journalist ought to read a newspaper, but I'm an old-fashioned loyalist in that way.

I was thinking about this after Robert Niles at OJR posted a question about how many newspapers you read each day. The answers in his unscientific poll aren't surprising.

Ted Gup bemoans the disengagement of college students with current events in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Nearly half of a recent class could not name a single country that bordered Israel. In an introductory journalism class, 11 of 18 students could not name what country Kabul was in, although we have been at war there for half a decade. Last fall only one in 21 students could name the U.S. secretary of defense. Given a list of four countries -- China, Cuba, India, and Japan -- not one of those same 21 students could identify India and Japan as democracies. Their grasp of history was little better. The question of when the Civil War was fought invited an array of responses -- half a dozen were off by a decade or more. Some students thought that Islam was the principal religion of South America, that Roe v. Wade was about slavery, that 50 justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, that the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1975.

He adds:

It is not easy to explain how we got into this sad state, or to separate symptoms from causes. Newspaper readership is in steep decline. My students simply do not read newspapers, online or otherwise, and many grew up in households that did not subscribe to a paper.

An oldtimer complaining about "these kids today?" I asked some journalism instructors who work here or used to work here for their observations.

Former managing editor Ned Cline: Sadly, based on my experiences in the classroom, today's students seldom if ever read newspapers. A few look a topics of interest on internet, but my classroom discussions indicate they do not follow local newspapers beyond what is required in class, even then begrudgingly and only enough to get by. Every week, I ask for news since last class and they seldom know beyond sports (males) or some rock star dying. And these are students with an interest in journalism (in theory). It is not a pleasant thought or much hope for future of newsrooms.

Editorial page editor Allen Johnson: I keep them honest with current events pop quizzes. I also require them to learn the names of local and state elected officials. Otherwise they are blissfully unaware of even the biggest national stories. However, once we get them engaged they seem to become more interested, and even thoughtful, in discussing the issues.

I believe them and sympathize with their frustration as teachers. But I'm struggling with the idea that this is something worth wringing my hands over. Or that it is a new phenomenon.

When I was in college in the early 70s, I read newspapers in the college library primarily to pass the time between classes and to procrastinate doing real work. I followed Watergate, but not the Middle East. I followed the Patty Hearst kidnapping and Jeffrey MacDonald case, but not the oil embargo or the SALT agreement.

So, really, tabloid crime, but not anything actually important. (Well, there was that Watergate caper. I guess that turned out to be important, but it was tabloid drama, too.) I can't imagine that I or any of my friends would have passed any of Allen's tests without studying. It wasn't until I began working for a newspaper that I tuned into the world beyond my own neighborhood of interests.

Fast forward to today. We don't hire many journalists straight out of college, but the ones we do either are tuned in, or more important, know how to get up to speed quickly. And that, I think, is the key.

Back in the day, if you wanted information, you went to the newspaper or weekly magazines, selected from one, two or three television stations, or buried yourself in back issues and Reader's Guides at the library. Now, information is available everywhere at anytime. There is no real need to constantly keep up, outside of personal interest, when you can catch up at a moment's notice. I have observed it in my own college-age children.

I think the problem is ours, not theirs. The sooner we understand the "news will find me" generation, the better.

Teenagers may not read newspapers so much, but they're still interested in them.

Yesterday, we held the interviews for our annual Scholastic Achievement program, in which we give college scholarships to outstanding high school seniors. One of the judges was Vickie Kilimanjaro, co-publisher of the Carolina Peacemaker.

We interviewed 12 students and gave each an opportunity to ask questions of the selection team. Four students did, and three of those asked Kilimanjaro about the experience of working for the paper. They seemed truly curious. (Of course, these are the public school system's best and brightest.)

It affirms Tim McGuire's thinking: There is a remarkable loyalty to the IDEA of newspapers despite the fact that many, if not most, of my students are not regular newspaper readers.

From the Readership Institute last week: Celebrity news seldom pops up among the topics of local readership studies. The celebrity television shows are facing ratings issues, and the ratings for awards shows like the Oscars are a shadow of their former selves. While there is a flurry of questions from newspapers about celebrity news in newspapers, the celebrity magazines are in a death plunge.

From Women's Wear Daily today: Jennifer Lopez's twin babes helped people.com break records in terms of traffic to its Web site on Thursday, the day the issue hit newsstands. People.com hit an all-time high of four million daily unique visitors who viewed the first picture of babies Max and Emme online from the magazine's exclusive photo shoot with Lopez and husband Marc Anthony.

J-Lo's babies won't be on the front page of the paper or the Website; we agree with the Readership Institute that the daily newspaper (or its Website) isn't the place people looking for that sort of info go. Still, 4 million visitors provides a pretty good parachute from the death plunge. With Branjolina and Jessica pregnant, the future is bright!

I was failing miserably at explaining to a friend why we published this story about reading -- or, rather, about the growing number of people who don't read much of anything -- as our Sunday A1 centerpiece. It's an important story, I said:

The trend has profound implications for our future work force, for the ability of people to make informed choices about the future of the country. Those who read less are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to vote and participate in civic affairs, the NEA finds.

But it's also a soft story. No bombs raining or bullets flying. No government corruption and no Spitzer sex. So why did it deserve big front page play, he asked.

I've been thinking about that conversation this week. That it has more resonance here than call-girl sex, money under the table or bullets became clear to me as I listened to the speakers at One Guilford this afternoon.

Here's the fact: Nearly 40 percent of the incoming students at GTCC do not read at the 8th grade level. That's what one panelist, Dr. Kathryn Baker Smith, vice president for educational support services at GTCC, said.

Nearly 40 percent read at the elementary or middle school level? Breathtaking.

Time was, people read the newspaper, and while they may not have thought much about it, they were reading, thinking, analyzing, expanding their horizons -- all that stuff. But the point is that they were reading every day. Not bills of lading. Not receipts. Not menus. Not the crawl on SportsCenter. Reading stories.

Perhaps I'm adding two plus two and coming up with 17, but I wonder how the decline of newspaper reading and the growing inability of a generation to read are connected. No, I'm not proposing some newspapers-as-medicine prescription. I know that train has left the station for this generation. But it is yet another cultural milepost that has just zipped past in the rear-view mirror.

At how high does the percentage need to get at GTCC before we as a community become alarmed enough to do something?

We had press problems this morning, and the papers were delivered late on many routes, including mine. I spent part of the morning on the phone, answering calls from friends politely inquiring where the heck their paper is. The message from most of them boiled down to this: How do you expect me to eat my breakfast and drink my coffee without the paper? It is what I do!

These aren't octogenarians, computerless and clueless. These are people in their 40's and 50's, successful, intelligent people. They have the newspaper habit and aren't willing to give it up, even though getting it digitally may be cheaper and deeper. They may well be the last generation of any size to include a printed newspaper in their media consumption, but there are still an awful lot of them and they're going to live many more years.

I am a proponent of digital journalism. As I watch how the people born in the 80's use media, I know digital is not just the future, it is now. As an industry, we have been slow to respond. Subsequently, some of the more provocative thinkers in journalism suggest that newspapers sell their presses and go digital. And/or that papers eliminate all wire copy -- the commodity news -- and focus everything on local.

In principal, I can see it, at some point. But I think of the people who called me and those who overwhelmed our customer service folks this morning. That is not what they want. And that's a lot of people.

Newspapers are struggling and we are partially to blame. But the challenge is in making the evolution from print to digital while still trying to serve the different audiences and meeting the demands of capitalism all within a recessionary market. I don't have that answer -- boy, would I be rich if I did. But it'll come.

There are many different ways to measure the vitality of the Web site -- traffic, unique visitors, interaction, time spent, among others.

With the newspaper, measures are quirkier, more arbitrary and wildly inaccurate. As retailer John Wanamaker said, "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

So I use a variety of anecdotal measures: I watch what people read and don't read when I'm out and about; I note how long papers lay neglected on driveways; and I track e-mails, letters to the editor, phone calls, comments on Debatables.

I also watch my wife. In the world of categorizing the newspaper "consumer," there are readers, who approach the paper as if it were a book, and there are users, who go through the paper looking for information they can use to do something.

My wife is both. She reads the Sports section first, and I know it's a good section if I am finished with the front section before she's finished with Sports. If she moves to the features section too quickly, I know we've failed in her first course.

The other measure I use is the number of times a section comes to me transformed into a newsprint jigsaw puzzle. This morning, she clipped out three or four features in the Life section -- a couple recipes, an advice column and a household tips column. Information worth clipping, filing and using. Could she have gotten it online? Of course, but the point is that she didn't...and probably wouldn't have thought of looking for that specific recipe. It just came to her, sounded tasty and appeared simple to prepare.

Some days, in our household, disappointment is getting a complete, whole newspaper.

These are the types of days newspaper people hate. We had some mechancial problems last night preventing us from getting the papers to the carriers until much later than normal. Because many of the carriers have other jobs, they aren't able to deliver the papers, which means we scramble.

And it means papers won't be delivered until mid-morning, which isn't what most people pay for.

The other reason we hate it is that it disrupts the newspaper habit. While you're eating your cereal, instead of reading the paper, you might watch the morning news. You might decide you like the idea of having an extra 20 minutes to get off to work.

On the other hand, I'm hoping that you miss us, knowing what happened out there, knowing who was born and who died, knowing all this stuff.