At the margins
(A modified version of this post I left at MediaCenter's Morph blog)
If you don't work in the newspaper business you might not have heard, but we haven't exactly been having a good year from the standpoint of circulation, and next year might well be worse.
One of the tidbits from this news that deserves a bit of amplification and discussion is the fact, mentioned by several newspaper executives, that papers are, and/or should be, intentionally reducing circulation in some areas by dropping "marginal" circulation -- circulation in areas they find unprofitable or that advertisers find unattractive.
This isn't new. The News & Record stopped selling papers at the beach a long time ago, for example, for the simple reason that it couldn't make money on them.
But newspapers face increasing competition from more tightly targeted media, and online advertising that values actual click-throughs over theoretical readers. To compete, newspapers must target the readers that advertisers really want, not just anyone who might subscribe to or pick up a paper.
Looking at things strictly from a business standpoint, I find these decisions perfectly rational. But looking at things strictly from a journalism standpoint, I find these decisions worrisome, the more so when I hear other people in the industry talking about the need to write stories that appeal more to the people our advertisers are trying to reach -- people, primarily young people, with lots of disposable income.
Here's a real life example. Last week, we published an article on applying for help with your heating bills. A friend with a background in marketing said to me that we shouldn't have reported and written that story: "The people who need that information aren't reading the paper." Or, put another way, the people advertisers are trying to reach aren't interested in that story.
I question whether that's consistently the case either way, but for the purposes of this discussion let's assume it's true. What are the moral ramifications of a decision not to report such stories? Does, or does not, the paper have an obligation to look after the needs of the poorest and weakest in our society, even if those folks aren't subscribers and/or are of no use to advertisers? And if not, who will?
What do you think?
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I think your marketing friend oversimplifies the issue. I may not have a need for help with my heating bills (yet), but I tend to think of myself as involved in my community, civic-minded and concerned, as such, I have an interest in those kinds of articles. Do advertisiers want to pitch to people like me who have an interest in the world beyond their immediate surroundings and personal concerns? I don't know.
Posted on November 15, 2005 12:24 PM
The latest news from the Gaza Strip doesn't impact my directly overmuch, but I still need to know about it. Lord knows any of us may be in the position where we need help heating our home. And if not us, perhaps someone we know is in that position. Tell your marketing friend he's flat out wrong in this regard. The folks with money *do* care about this kind of story, even if it simply serves to remind them that there a great many folks who *do* have to think about this kind of thing.
Posted on November 18, 2005 10:35 PM