Unclutterer

1. Posted by D.I.G. - 07/10/2007

   While I understand your point, and the only daily I read is one I read online, there’s something you’ve gotten wrong in the post.

   Remember: A news organization’s first priority is to produce quality content, and their second priority is to optimize it across multiple distribution platforms to reach the largest possible audience.

   My dad’s a newspaper publisher, and I grew up around the business. I can tell you for sure that the first priority of a newspaper is to make enough money to stay in business, hopefully with profit enough to expand and keep things interesting. The problem that most papers have with their online offerings is how to keep the revenue streams up.

   Papers make most of their money not through subscriptions, but through advertising. In the print medium, they give you all of the ads, and you can choose what to look at. Online, you choose only which articles to peruse, and never come near some of the ads. Legal advertising (lawsuits and such) are still required to be published in print, and for many smaller papers, those ads have become a major way to keep the presses running. But the industry, particularly the publications which aren’t major daily papers, has struggled and continues to struggle with a business model that allows them to make money with their online offerings. What I hear is that most of them lose money on their web publications. If everyone switches to web-only reading, there will be a lot less quality/traditional journalism to read.

   (Please note that I am not suggesting that alternative news sources, like blogs, aren’t sometimes very high quality. I just mean that there are no quality controls on them, and no one to whom to complain when something is just plain wrong. A good newspaper is very concerned about its reputation for reliability. An independent blogger, maybe not so much.)

2. Posted by Erin at Unclutterer - 07/10/2007

   D.I.G. -
   I think that a few publishers would still agree that news is about the money. Those numbers are very small, however. The growth of online news sources over the last 15 years has changed the market significantly. Warren Buffet, the wealthy investor who also owns the Buffalo News, states the current economic situation better than I can: “… the days of lush profits from our newspaper are over.” Yet, he continues to own the news organization because he believes that ” … a free and energetic press is a key ingredient for maintaining a great democracy.” In my experience, publishers who are still in it expecting big profits are rare.

   Buffet’s analysis of the news industry is interesting and makes for a good read if you have the time. Look at the bottom of page 11 and all of page 12 of the most recent year’s Berkshire Hathaway report: http://www.berkshirehathaway.c.....006ltr.pdf.

3. Posted by Camryn - 07/10/2007

   This is a great idea. But also, news papers are something that can be recycled many times! I learned about this when I was younger and news paper is something really great to recycle.

4. Posted by Alissa - 07/10/2007

   I will go back and read the Berkshire Hathaway report, but my initial reaction is that it’s probably not sound logic to use Warren Buffet’s words as proof that newspapers can do without all those paper subscribers. It certainly applies to the large news corporations — the Tribune Company, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, WSJ, etc — but even for the next tier of media groups, the focus isn’t on making money hand over fist. It’s about staying afloat.

   My husband is an editor at a newspaper that is part of a larger, growing chain. They do have a website, and they’re going to great lengths to drive readers to their online content. But the reality of the situation is that a large chunk of the subscribers are aging and either a) prefer to read something that allows them to cut out and save articles or b) do not own a computer. Advertisers in the area are well aware of this fact and, as such, choose not to advertise on the website. The company relies on print ad revenue to stay afloat.

   In many communities, the problem is the generation gap. Newspaper subscribers are literally a dying breed, and younger readers who have largely grown up reading news online feel they’re entitled to news at no charge. It will take a while to convert independent, small-town businesses– the ones who tend to focus on newspaper advertising — to covert to the web when many don’t even maintain websites. If everyone cancels their newspaper subscription and advertisers no longer see value in that advertising medium but also feel not yet able or willing to plow full steam ahead with online advertising, how are these newspapers expected to remain fiscally viable? Subscriptions alone would barely pay the utility bills.

   Until online advertising is just as common and “comfortable” as print for the lion’s share of current newspaper advertisers, you’re doing all news readers a disservice by advocating the cancellation of newspaper subscriptions. Newspaper owners and employees can believe in the importance of a free and energetic press until the cows come home, but not one of them can afford to hold it in such high regard if producing the news doesn’t merit reasonable compensation.

5. Posted by carolyn - 07/10/2007

   I stopped taking the newspaper at home last year. I read the news at the local paper’s website daily, as well as some national news websites and some blogs. I have to say, while I feel just as well-informed, maybe more, I miss the pleasure of sitting down and leafing through the pages of a real live newspaper. Also, the smell.

6. Posted by Lori - 07/10/2007

   I agree that Buffet’s analysis is interesting and sound, but I have to disagree with Erin’s assessment that only small numbers of newspaper publishers are driven by the money motive. Newspapers are first and foremost businesses, and their mandate is to make money for their owners/shareholders. When readership drops, ad pages decline, which means less income for the owners. Without income, one must print fewer pages and must rely more on relatively cheap wire service stories (as compared to original reporting). When content declines, readership declines again, and you’re now in a viscious circle. Over the years, I’ve seen it happen to several papers I’m familiar with.

   I believe that eventually a more sustainable model will emerge; what that will be, I’m not sure. In the meantime, my hat is off to those altruistic publishers who manage to maintain high standards in the face of negative cash flow, but we cannot expect that to last forever. If your local newspaper is important to you, find a way to support it.

   Regarding online vs. print content, there are a large number of papers out there that do *not* put their entire content online — mine, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, being one of them — and even more whose websites are so clunky and cluttered and hard to navigate that the effort is just not worth it (again, the Plain Dealer via cleveland.com).

   Back to the question of clutter, though: Newspapers only become clutter when they are hoarded. If you don’t want to stop the paper subscription, you must commit to tossing the paper into the recycling bin after you’ve read it, or at the end of the day if you haven’t. I do this on my five-minute end-of-the-day cleanup. And yes, you still have to get rid of it even if you haven’t had a chance to read it. You will not read it tomorrow, or the day after, or next week. Just toss it. When you find that you’re tossing more than you’re reading, then it’s time to consider cancelling the subscription.

7. Posted by magnoliasouth - 07/10/2007

   Keep in mind that not all newspapers are online AND some may be online, but only show a portion of what the actual printed paper offers.

   This is quite common in smaller towns. Not all of America lives in New York, LA or Chicago.

   The real tip is not to let newspapers stack up. They’re handy and useful (lining the floor to clean the oven, cleaning the windows, etc.) so getting rid of them altogether is a bad idea no matter where you live really.

8. Posted by Leo Petr - 07/10/2007

   Even as a Canadian, I find Britain’s Guardian to be the best newspaper in the world:
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/

9. Posted by Bryus - 07/10/2007

   Great suggestion. I did exactly this last may. I had been getting the paper daily but dropped back to Sunday’s only to get the coupons and ads.

   The Rocky Mountain News is only $2 a months in electronic form and I can download a PDF version to read wherever and whenever I want.

10. Posted by awurrlu - 07/10/2007

    Like magnoliasouth, I have to take issue with the claim that, “In most every case, the news that you read online is the exact same content that runs in the print newspapers. In situations where the content isn’t the same, it is usually because the story has been updated with more recent and expanded information.”

    If a freelancer has written a story for a newspaper or magazine, it may not appear online or in a database paid for by your library. Why not? Check out the Tasini Decision: http://www.law.duke.edu/journa.....r0025.html

    Essentially, some newspapers may not have the rights to take a story from their print edition and run it in their online edition.

    And to stem the tide of declining print subscriptions, some newspapers may purposefully not put all content online.

    Now, I do wholeheartedly believe in Peter Walsh’s statement that you should not have more than two unread back issues of periodicals lurking around. If I can’t read a paper by the second day I’ve had it, off to the recycling bin it goes.

    If I’ve read it, I leave it in a cafe or near the free paper stand near my cafeteria at work and let someone else enjoy it.

11. Posted by melissa - 07/10/2007

    Online content serves a need but the newspaper is much more portable than a laptop, I can spill my lunch on it, and I don’t have to worry about locating wi-fi.

12. Posted by Cyrano - 07/10/2007

    * throws feet up on the table *

    I love being paperless!

13. Posted by rappy - 07/10/2007

    I have read and recycled the paper for many years, but recently cancelled my subscription, when the following was pointed out to me:

    1. A newspaper’s main objective (as noted above) is generating revenues through advertising. With up to half of the space dedicated to advertising, much of which is aimed at getting people to buy MORE newspapers, the damage to the environment continues to grow.

    2. While paper recycling sounds great and beneficial and green, the process requires a massive quantity of water, so while we may be saving trees, we’re drying out water resources in the process.

    Though I do read the newspaper online, I don’t do it quite so thoroughly as I did when I had the print edition, and frankly, living where I live, I’m feeling a great deal of relief knowing less about what is going on.

14. Posted by JR Boyens - 07/10/2007

    I actually just ordered a subscription for one thing: coupons.

    Can’t get them anywhere other than the Sunday paper. As far as I know that is…

15. Posted by Zac Goodwin - 07/12/2007

    “Cancel your daily print newspaper subscription.”

    Whoa. I actually work at a daily newspaper as a photographer and cannot think of a worse bit of advice to give your readers from my standpoint. The direct effect of many people switching to online only can be quickly seen here, http://www.penpressclub.org/ , with report of layoff after layoff at many major metros.

    This backlash of laysoffs I believe came about by the newspapers offering for free online what they charged for in print. As you pointed out, many readers are starting to change to online service that gets them the paper for free. This in return makes papers charge, cut back, or stop offering the online service at all in an effort to retain readership. The effort to retain readership is paramount because advertising is directly related to circulation, which translates into advertising dollars.

    As noted, a newspaper’s primary income is from Advertising and Classifieds. The rate a paper charges for Advertising and Classified is directly related to the ammount of circulation a paper has in a particular market. Less circulation, less money for advertising, because advertisers pay for the ammount of eyeballs they capture.

    I agree with Warren Buffet … “… the days of lush profits from our newspaper are over.” The amount of profit made by newspapers was quite high, much higher than the average corporations of their size. And as you have pointed “Warren Buffet continues to own the news organization because he believes that ‘ … a free and energetic press is a key ingredient for maintaining a great democracy.’” This is an attitude that can be seen in many family owned papers. Yet if you work for a publicly owned chain who’s goal is to keep stock prices up, they end up making cuts to at the very least keep the status quo. A loss in profit, even if it means bringing the profit margin down to a more reasonable level means a loss in stock price, which investors are not willing to accept. This results in job cuts, and a loss of talent that you get the newspaper for. There is a more comprehensive breakdown that can be seen here in part 3 of the report: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/

    This is mostly a rehash of what Lori said, but it needs to be re-said none the less. I encourage you to support your paper while it figures out a model that can best make use of the new technologies that have come out in recent years, and you can best do that by buying a paper. There are other, clutterless ways to deal with the paper and help keep your reporters/photographers employed and doing good work.

16. Posted by Kelly Moore - 07/14/2007

    Coupons coupons coupons!

    Most ads you can view on the store’s website, but you just can’t get coupons online. My coupon habit is small and limited to Sunday-only papers and the rest is recycled. It’s really the least cluttery thing I think I own/do.

17. Posted by Cliff - 07/18/2007

    I’m a journalist. I subscribe to nothing. Make work pay for it, read it there. You can likely get about ten or twelve more publications at the office than you would want to pay for at home, because a variety of people can ostensibly share one copy of a publication. If you really like something, you can always go buy a single copy, or put a stick-it note on the cover that says “return to Fred when you’re done” (presuming your name is not Wanda!). Or photocopy the article you like. In general, you’ll find that you idly read fewer things if they aren’t around when you have free time (thus, you do something productive instead!), and the office is a great place to test-drive which publications are truly important to you.

Subscribe to this entry's comments