. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Showing posts with label newspaper industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label newspaper industry. Show all posts
Disintegrating Paper Contributing to Disintegrating Industry (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
It used to be a "half-page ad" in a newspaper meant a full page of newsprint, half of which (usually the bottom half) contained advertising matter.
Today it has become, more literally, a half of a page of newsprint all of which is advertising.
A newspaper that falls apart in your hands is but one more bit of evidence of an industry that is disintegrating as well.
Ever since I was a "newspaper boy" for the Des Moines Register I have liked, subscribed to, read, and written for newspapers.
Young people don't feel that way anymore.
A few days ago, I had an occasion to visit with some undergraduates sitting at my table while I was lunching in a University dormitory cafeteria. During our conversation I asked about their newspaper reading habits. They reported their only contact with the newspaper industry was an occasional glance at the Daily Iowan.
The newspaper industry, desperate to reestablish newspaper reading habits among those in these students' generation, does not merely offer student discounts on subscriptions. They actually give away hard copy editions of their papers for free. I asked my luncheon companions if they ever read any of the papers available to them in racks no more than 25 feet from our table -- the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Des Moines Register, USA Today, and the Press-Citizen. Not only did they never bother to pick up and read these free papers, they were unaware the rack even existed.
When writing about failures in the hard copy newspaper delivery system I observed, "To borrow a bit of advice, the industry needs to control what it can, accept what it cannot, and be wise enough to know the difference."
There's not much the newspaper industry can do about a declining economy and advertising revenue. On the other hand, subscriber frustration from late delivery, non-delivery, unpredictable erratic delivery, and having to hunt for where the paper may have landed on any given morning, was it seemed to me something in the category of when "the industry needs to control what it can."
The half-page newspaper is another example of deliberately frustrating subscribers unnecessarily.
Last Saturday's edition of a local paper is an example.
Pages A13 and A14 (the last page of the first section) are not connected to pages A1 and A2 -- as one would expect. They are attached to something that lays over p. A1 and is half the width of the front page.
On this day it contained ads for 8 vehicles in the $40,000 to $54,000 range. One would think that an auto dealer looking for customers with that kind of loose pocket change would not want to irritate the few who might exist. Apparently the dealer either didn't care, didn't think about it, or was not informed by the paper what she or he was going to be getting for their advertising dollars.
No matter how you approach such a newspaper, with the intention of holding and reading it, it disintegrates.
There was a day when no reputable newspaper would have advertising on its front page. That page, above all, was reserved for news. Advertising on it would be demeaning.
Those days are over. I understand that.
But trying to retain some of their dignity by covering a half of the front page with an advertising-only piece of newsprint that makes it impossible even to hold the paper, let alone read it, is a self-defeating and unsuccessful path to that goal. It is not a defense to say that the advertising is not literally on the front page when it is covering it.
It's not that there aren't alternatives.
This issue of the paper came with 21, count 'em, 21 inserts of various shapes, colors and sizes -- some up to the thickness and weight of a major magazine.
I don't like the idea of advertising on the front page of my paper. But if the paper really needs the money that badly, just redesign the front page and devote half of it (or more) to advertising. Below the fold would be less offensive than using the entire left half of the page (as the advertising overlay does).
Just don't send me a paper that falls apart when I try to hold it.
One would think that to be a no brainer. Apparently it's not. I guess it's a really creative sales and marketing suggestion I've come up with; something that could increase circulation (and advertising rates).
I'm happy to pass it along. And in these difficult economic times, to do so for free. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
For your sake and mine, this is not about to become my definitive work on the future of the newspaper industry. But I will make some comments.
1. "Everything You Know About Intellectual Property is Wrong." Sixteen years ago John Perry Barlow provided the world an insight, and for those in the intellectual property business, a warning. Barlow has been a cattle rancher from my old stomping ground around Pinedale, Wyoming, lyricist for the Grateful Dead, and co-founder with Lotus developer Mitch Kaporof of the "eff" (the Electronic Frontier Foundation), still going strong at www.eff.org, and about to celebrate its 20th birthday February 10, 2010.
It was early in the age of the Internet, and World Wide Web, but he saw what was coming. Among other things, he observed, "copyright," which came to us from a time when it was necessary to protect the bottle more than the wine -- the book, or reel of film, you could hold in your hand -- expressly provides that "ideas" cannot be protected. Indeed, Section 102 of the current Copyright Act still provides that the Act only protects "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." John Perry Barlow, "The Economy of Ideas; A framework for patents and copyrights in the Digital Age; (Everything you know about intellectual property is wrong),"Wired 2.03, March 1994.
Indeed, he leads his seminal article with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, including this passage:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea . . .. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
2.Free razors. Charging what the market will bear for everything you have to sell is not necessarily the road to riches. John Perry explains how, while other bands were hiring security guards to keep concert-goers from bringing tape recorders into the venue, the Grateful Dead encouraged fans to make tapes of concerts and share them as widely with friends as they wished. Grateful Dead's grateful Dead Heads soon not only made the group richer from more ticket sales, but CD sales as well. As a result, not only did the group create goodwill, and get wider distribution among potential new fans with this approach, it turned out that as often as not those who got the music "for free" were sufficiently impressed to want to buy the higher quality CD version with the liner notes.
Someone else's more recent Wired article puts the story in context:
"He [Gillette] sold razors in bulk to banks so they could give them away with new deposits ("shave and save" campaigns). Razors were bundled with everything from Wrigley's gum to packets of coffee . . .. By giving away the razors, which were useless by themselves, he was creating demand for disposable blades. A few billion blades later, this business model is now the foundation of entire industries: Give away the cell phone, sell the monthly plan; make the videogame console cheap and sell expensive games; install fancy coffeemakers in offices at no charge so you can sell managers expensive coffee sachets."
3. Newspapers understood the part about giving away the content for free. All of which brings me to one of my favorite Seinfeld bits. Jerry and Elaine are at the rental car counter. He has a reservation. The rental car company is out of cars. Here's how it goes, followed by the YouTube video.
Agent: I'm sorry, we have no mid-size available at the moment.
Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?
Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.
Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.
Agent: I know why we have reservations.
Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.
In other words, newspapers understood the part about giving away their content for free, they just didn't understand the part about having to substitute some other revenue stream to make up for the lost advertising and subscription revenue stream.
As Frank Ahrens explains in the Washington Post story with which I began, quoting the Financial Times' FT.online managing director Rob Grimshaw:
"[I]t was a 'huge mistake' for publishers to give away their product. So why did they? Grimshaw said newspaper publishers realized they did not understand the Internet, so they hired Internet experts and 'let them do whatever they wanted and whatever they said was the right thing.'"
Imagine someone in the home building business, building unique homes from the buyers' architectural plans, being told about manufactured homes.
"I tell you, Bubba, this is going to be big. Now's the time to get in on the ground floor, so to speak."
"So what do you suggest I do?"
"Construct a facility where you can build them and get started."
"Yeah, and then?"
"And then announce you're going to start giving them away. You'll have customers breaking your door down."
"Wow. You really think so? I think I'll do it. If it worked for Gillette with razors it ought to work for me with manufactured homes."
No, I don't think that's exactly how it happened in the newspaper business, but it's not far off.
4. What I predict will, and won't, work. When I was teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, law school, I subscribed to the New York Times by mail, which was the only way to get it. It came about three days late, but it was still able to inform me of stories before they appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. I urged the company to start a West Coast edition, which eventually it did.
In Iowa City, once the Times became available online I actually preferred the online to the hard copy edition. It wasn't the cost; the Times is one of a number of papers that give away hard copy editions for free to college students in an effort to win back the younger readers they have been losing (and will need to someday replace the rest of us) -- a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience.
When I heard the paper had mortgaged its building, I even tried to make a charitable contribution to the Times. After all, we're willing to contribute to Iowa Public Radio and Iowa Public Television. It turned out there was no way to make a contribution to the Times. I would have subscribed to the hard copy as a way of getting the paper some money, but our newspaper recycling bin is already a heavy load to carry to the curb as it is.
So I sent an email to the guy managing the two electronic editions asking for information. I knew enough about both of them to know that I wouldn't use either; I'm accustomed to, and find fully adequate, the format of what's available for free. But I would at least feel less guilty, I explained to him, if I was sending the Times money for something, even if I would never use it.
He never replied, and I decided that ended my charitable obligation to the organization.
Now, it turns out, I'll have another chance next year. But I'm not sure just how many others like me there are out there looking for a way to contribute their hard earned money to a large, for-profit corporation.
Like every other newspaper, the New York Times circulation is down, but the daily and Sunday circulations still hover around one million daily and 1.4 million Sunday. So the paper's starting off with something between 1/3 and 1/2 of one percent of the American population. Richard Perez-Pena, "U.S. Newspaper Circulation Falls 10%,"New York Times, October 27, 2009, p. B3. Can it expect to continue to hold even that many when it starts charging readers for online access; readers who (a) have grown accustomed to the idea that "information wants to be free," both in general and with respect to the content of the New York Times in particular, and (b) have access to other nationally respected, influential newspapers that will not charge -- as Frank Ahrens reports his Washington Post is not, now, contemplating?
He also reminds us that,
"The Times Co. tried a pay wall around content from its opinion columnists in 2005 -- a feature called TimesSelect -- charging $49.95 per year for online access to such writers as Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. The Times got 227,000 subscribers to sign up, but abandoned the plan in 2007; behind the pay wall, some of the paper's star writers had been effectively removed from the national conversation.
Online ad revenue has not, so far, come close to replacing the lost hard copy advertising income. As the Financial Times' Rob Grimshaw calculates, it takes 4 billion page views a month to produce $50 million a year -- which, as I calculate it, means a return of roughly 1/10th cent per page view (if that's something that interests you).
The Times supplies no details. It says it will fill us in on those later this year, or early 2011. But it refers to a "metered" service. If it means that literally -- that the reader will owe an incremental amount more for every story hit on, or every word displayed on the screen (for stories that carry over multiple screens) -- I predict it will fare no better than TimesSelect. There are many ways of "reading" the Times' relatively thorough (long) stories: glancing at a headline, reading the lead or the first few grafs, scanning the entire story, or reading it carefully word for word. Although the quality and value of each of those approaches varies widely I don't know how they can be variously monitored, metered and priced.
What readers have shown a willingness to pay for so far are online services that are essential to their lives or professions, or actually produce money for them. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal are two examples of newspapers that many people in the business community, banking, investing, and some academics (e.g., corporation and securities law professors; business college faculty) simply must read every day if they are to hold their jobs, let alone prosper. Moreover, since those in business are relatively wealthy to begin with (and some academics get discount subscription rates) the added daily cost of the paper (hard copy, online, or both) is of no more significance to them than a second cup of Starbucks coffee.
As for the rest of us, Consumer Reports is an example of a magazine that pays for itself many times over -- hard copy, online or both -- for millions of American consumers smart enough to know it's not true that "you get what you pay for," and want to go into the marketplace (brick-and-mortar or online) fully armed with the facts.
When a friend asked me why I listened to the BBC during the night, I responded without thinking, "Because I like to be informed." (He laughed. It is an odd habit, I admit; but the BBC seems to be the only source of journalism that regularly reminds the listener that there really are more than five or six countries in the world, and that those nations' most important stories are not always wars and natural disasters.)
How many people are there who are equally compulsive about their desire "to be informed" -- about matters beyond their work or potential future income? More significant, how many of them are willing to pay -- in the quantity and way that the Financial Times' and Wall Street Journal's readers are -- for the mere, non-remunerative satisfaction of being generally informed? And even among them, how many are willing to pay one source when other, somewhat similar sources, remain available for free?
I don't know the answers. I don't even know all the questions. But the Times, and the rest of us, will at least have some of them 18 months to two years from now. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
May 3, 2009, 10:00 a.m.; May 23, 2009, 10:00 a.m. (addition of "The Final Chapter") [Looking for the April 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, Swine Flu blog entry? Click here.]
68-Year-Old Subscription Cancelled: Seinfeld, Tomlin, and Bedbug Letter Explain Why (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
For 68 years some family member living in our family home has been paying the subscription price for a particular Iowa newspaper, now owned by Gannett. For the past 19 years I have been, once again, living in that home and my wife has been paying for that paper.
Two days ago that 68-year history came to an end.
My wife and I divide the chores around the house. I get the easy jobs -- the daily cleaning of two cat litter boxes, taking out the trash, sweeping the patio -- tasks someone with my limited abilities can handle.
She has the hard jobs, and says the most difficult of all is dealing with Gannett's computerized "customer service."
We've had problems before with newspaper delivery. See Nicholas Johnson, "Of Newspapers and Nails," March 8, 2009; Nicholas Johnson, "Newspaper Delivery an Update," March 27, 2009. The problems I wrote about in those blog entries involved the "multiple-variable delivery problem." If a newspaper subscriber can't know (a) whether the paper is going to be delivered at all or not on a given day, and (b) if it is going to be delivered, when that might be, and (c) where it might be found on the property, that subscriber must look for the paper each morning in a variety of possible places, at a variety of different times.
Since writing those blog entries I have been stunned at the number of people who have told me similar stories of their problems with delivery -- a number of whom have simply canceled their subscriptions in frustration.
That is, stunned until I've come to realize that this is an industry-wide problem. Put "newspaper delivery problems" (without quotes) into Google and you get 18,500,000 hits. I don't know whether newspaper delivery problems exist inside Second Life, but there is apparently a Second Life-like children's Web site, WebKinzInsider.com, in which there is a forum for "employment/newspaper delivery problems."
For us, since those blog entries were posted the delivery problems have, for the most part, disappeared. Indeed, while we never insisted that the paper be within arm's reach from the kitchen door (only that it be in the same place each day at roughly the same time) it has actually been showing up at the door and usually a few minutes before or after 5:00 a.m. No more complaints on that score. We were getting excellent service from the carrier.
No, the problem that finally pushed Mary over the edge was not a delivery problem -- at least not in the usual sense. It was a problem of (a) Gannett corporate policy, and (b) take-it-or-leave-it customer relations.
For her it was frustration, leading finally to anger, and then to action -- canceling the 68-year-old subscription.
For me, today's blog entry is about the future of the newspaper industry -- not the future of a given newspaper, let alone a given subscriber's relationship to that newspaper. I think newspapers -- journalism, and especially investigative journalism -- are important to democracy. Like the U.S. automobile industry, the newspaper industry confronts both (a) serious problems not of its own making, but also (b) problems it has, unnecessarily, brought upon itself.
So, however much I may love my wife, and wish that she not have to suffer frustration and anger, this story is not about her. It is, rather, a case study in the disappearance of American newspapers.
She (and I) are aware that no business, whether manufacturing or service, can deliver perfection. No matter how good the corporation's quality control there will always be defective products and sub-par service: delayed flights -- and missed newspaper deliveries.
Like any other business this creates three separate challenges and needs for the newspaper industry:
1. Quality control techniques designed to minimize the number of days that subscribers are not provided a paper
2. A procedure for providing a prompt supplementary, special delivery to those subscribers who call the paper to report non-delivery on any given day
3. Trained personnel to handle those calls in friendly and understanding ways that will retain customer loyalty
The reason I identify the paper as a "Gannett paper" is because I have the suspicion that those employed by the individual newspaper in question would probably have handled these three challenges differently, and thus that the policies and practices are probably those of the parent corporation.
It turns out that Gannett's new non-delivery policy is that when a subscriber calls to report a non-delivery, (a) the subscriber must talk to a computer (that has always been the case), (b) the computer informs the subscriber that they have two, and only two, choices: (1) have the paper delivered the next day, or (2) receive a refund for one paper, and (c) those subscribers tenacious enough to fight their way through to a human being will receive a Marine Corps drill sergeant's warm understanding.
When I heard of my wife's experience, and read what was ultimately her exchange of emails with the Gannett computer, I was reminded of a couple of old television bits. One is the Seinfeld episode when Jerry and Elaine went to pick up his rental car.
Gannett's policy seems to have been developed by someone totally unfamiliar with the business in which its newspapers are engaged. Those loyal readers who have been hanging on and providing their support to the industry are buying a service (not a product): it is the timely, daily, receipt of a paper and ink report of the news, delivered to their homes or offices (hopefully sufficiently early in the morning that it can be read before going to work). Subscribing to a daily newspaper means subscribers want, and assume they are buying, a continuous, daily, stream of this service. That doesn't mean there won't ever be a day when, for some reason, it doesn't arrive at the usual time. What it does mean is that when that happens, and is reported (hopefully to a human rather than a computer), the paper will make an immediate effort to get it there as quickly as possible.
Here's a transcript of the relevant excerpt from the Seinfeld episode, followed by a YouTube video.
Agent: I'm sorry, we have no mid-size available at the moment.
Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?
Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.
Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the reservation.
Agent: I know why we have reservations.
Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them.
That's kind of analogous to Gannett's problem. They understand the part about how to take the subscription, and the part about getting their money for the subscription, they just don't understand the part about providing the daily service.
The next problem Gannett has is customer relations.
It's a subject I became interested in when serving on the school board and wishing to bring the school district's customer service up to the level of what I called (to the irritation of my fellow board members) "the Wal-Mart standard." ("If Wal-Mart can provide that level of customer focus by training high school dropouts why can't we do it with college graduates?")
A friend with experience as a convenience store manager told me of the training he'd received. Whenever a customer came into the store with a complaint the manager was instructed to say to the customer, with compassion, "How can I make this right with you?" Nine times out of ten, he told me, that was enough to satisfy customers who were primarily just requesting understanding and respect.
And then there is the legendary Southwest Airlines. "'We literally say that we hire for attitude and we train for skill,' said [Southwest's CEO Colleen] Barrett, quickly reassuring the audience that Southwest only brings in top-notch pilots and mechanics. 'And we are far more likely to terminate someone for attitude and behavior and lack of respect than just about anything else.'" "Southwest Airlines' Colleen Barrett Flies High on Fuel Hedging and 'Servant Leadership,'" Knowledge@Wharton/Leadership & Change, July 9, 2008. "Southwest's unusual and now legendary approach to customer service . . . aims to treat the company's 35,000 employees like family, to make the workplace fun -- and then to carry that upbeat attitude to consumers. . . . 'Our mission statement is posted every three feet . . . It's to follow the Golden Rule -- to treat people the way that you want to be treated, and pretty much everything will fall into place.'"
Gannett's take-it-or-leave-it approach reminded me of a famous bit from a very early "Saturday Night Live." Here's an excerpt from the transcript, followed by an incomplete YouTube video (without the "we don't care" line) that will at least give a sense of the performance.
Ernestine: A gracious hello. Here at the Phone Company, we handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to the scum of the earth. So, we realize that, every so often, you can't get an operator, or for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order, or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make. We don't care!
Watch this... [she hits buttons maniacally] We just lost Peoria.
You see, this phone system consists of a multi-billion-dollar matrix of space age technology that is so sophisticated -- [she hits buttons with her elbows] even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
That's kind of Gannett's attitude: "Those are your two options. You don't like 'em? Tough. We don't care. We don't have to. We're a newspaper monopoly." Except it's not. And it's losing customers. And there's still a newspaper outside our kitchen door -- it's just not theirs.
Here are excerpts from the email exchanges between Mary and The Corporation. (Gannett employees names have been deleted; there is no purpose or desire to embarrass any named individual. This is a matter of corporate policy and behavior.)
Introduction: Mary's description of how it began.
There was no paper the morning of May 1. I called the 800 number. The automated response asked for telephone number beginning with area code. It then asked for address. I responded to a list of computer voice options saying it was a delivery issue. The automatic response asked if I wanted the paper delivered tomorrow or a refund for today. I said neither, that I want the paper today. After several tries I was connected with a live person who asked for my telephone number and address and then asked rather brusquely what the problem was. I said I had responded to the automated thing and was told that my only two options were as mentioned above. The person said that if that is what the computer told me that was how it was. I explained that I liked to have the paper on the day it was printed and that it wouldn’t do to have it the next day. The person repeated that that was just the way it is. We had a few more exchanges until I said I really did think it was time to cancel. The person's only response was “fine.” There was no "How can we make this right with you?" There was no, "I really understand your frustration. I'm not someone who is able to do anything about it but here's how you can register your complaint with someone who might be able to." Just, "that's the way it is," and "fine."
The first email. 8:50 a.m.
We did not get our paper this morning. I called the 1-800 number and was told that my only two options were to receive the paper tomorrow or receive a refund. That, of course, is not acceptable. I then talked with a live person who explained rather tersely that if the automated response gave me those two options then those were the only two choices. This was so frustrating. No reasons were given for why the paper was not delivered nor were any given for why none would be delivered today. I felt that the only choice at that time was to cancel. We have been customers for years and this is not an easy thing to do. If you can give me a rational explanation and assure me that this will not happen again I will, of course, resubscribe. Mary
First reply. 1:39 p.m.
Dear Mr . . .,
[NJ: Why someone named "Mary" would be addressed as "Mr" is beyond me, unless the Gannett representative thought "Mary" was also used as a man's name.]
Thank you for contacting the [Gannett paper]. Miss it once...MISS A LOT! We appreciate your business and apologize for our poor delivery service.
[NJ: "Miss it once . . . MISS A LOT!" seems an odd motto to include in responding to a subscriber who has just made precisely that point.]
We certainly want to address this immediately. I will get this matter resolved to your satisfaction. It is our goal to make sure we are meeting the needs of our subscribers.
I have contacted your current carrier about this matter,as well as our circulatory department. We apologize for the inconvenience you have experienced and have taken necessary steps to insure this matter comes to an end. If you have any further questions or would like to give home delivery another try please contact to further assist you. We hate to lose you as a customer and hope to hear from you soon. Have a great day!
Please allow us to take care of this matter promptly so you can continue to enjoy the convenience of home delivery.
Sincerely, . . .
[NJ: As will soon be made clear, this response totally misses the mark. The concern was not with a single day's missed paper; the concern was with the corporate policy that provides no option for its same-day delivery in cases of non-delivery. As a response it is, therefore, even worse than the Pullman car passenger's complaint about bedbugs in his roomette.
You know the story? The passenger got a reply from the Pullman Company CEO, "a letter so courteous and logical that he was greatly soothed." It explained that they had never had bedbug complaints before, could not imagine how this could have happened, that they were sure it would never happen again, and that they hoped he would continue to travel by train.
He then discovered that his letter to the company had inadvertently been enclosed in the envelope along with the CEO's letter to him. In the margin was scribbled in pencil, "Send this guy the bedbug letter." Anonymous, Jokes for All Occasions, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008, p. 107.
Gannett's reply was, in effect, "Send this man (named "Mary") 'the bedbug email.'" (Except for the fact the bedbug letter at least addressed the customer's complaint; the Gannett reply did not even do that.)]
The second email. 6:11 p.m.
I want to be clear. It was not the failure of delivery. One expects that to happen now and then. My complaint was specifically about your policy not to bring the paper to the customer on the DAY of the paper. Your options were either to have the paper delivered the next day or to have a refund for that day. THAT is what was unacceptable. In the past the paper was brought out right away after a report of a missed delivery. If you can assure me that your policy of not making same day delivery has changed I will certainly continue with the [Gannett paper]. Mary (not Mr.)
The Second Reply. 6:23 p.m.
Dear Ms. . . .,
Thank you for contacting the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Miss it once...MISS A LOT!
I apologize for the inconvenience. We did offer re-delivery in the past. I understand your frustration but the cost of doing business continues to grow and as a result we've had to make some difficult decisions. We are no longer able to offer re-delivery Monday through Friday. It is our goal to continue providing you with a high quality newspaper at a low price. To ensure this error does not occur again, I have notified the carrier. Please feel free to reply to this e-mail if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
The Third (and last) Email. May 2, 7:28 a.m.
It is obvious that you have never understood the nature of my complaint. My complaint to you and my decision to cancel my subscription is NOT because of the carrier. I understand that there are occasions when papers are not delivered. My sole reason for canceling is your policy of NOT redelivering the PC on the day it was missed. I think customer satisfaction plays a big part in your business and it looks like you are being penny wise and pound foolish.
Mary
Gannett CEO Craig A. Dubow explains to shareholders Gannett's "customer centric," "customer-based," goal to "link our efforts better to customer desires," "focused on the customer's wants and needs," "delivering the content customers want"
The basic principles of our strategy are these: Become customer centric in everything we do. . . .
Another key strategic goal for Gannett is to become a digital powerhouse. In 2008, we achieved a major milestone in this regard by making more than $1 billion pro forma in digital revenues across all our divisions. . . .
In Detroit, while producing award-winning journalism, they also were busy creating a whole new approach to the business of newspapers. We believe this innovative, customer-based method will lead the way for our industry.
Again, the changes to our newspapers were done with an eye to the strategic plan’s goal of becoming leaner, faster and much more focused on the customers’ wants and needs. . . .
As you know, in 2008 we had operating revenues of nearly $6.8 billion and operating cash flow of nearly $1.5 billion. . . .
At the same time, we need to link our efforts better with customer desires. In 2009, you will see us providing content verticals that reach into the hearts and minds of our customers in ways we haven’t before. . . .
We are very customer focused, delivering the content customers want on any platform they want it.
Think about it. Here is a newspaper company, with revenues of nearly $7 billion a year, that has as one of the "basic principles of [its] strategy [to] become customer centric in everything we do." Wouldn't you think that it could afford to make one of those things, among its "everything we do," the delivery of its daily papers to subscribers?
The Final Chapter
Like all stories this one, too, has a final chapter.
It has turned out that it is as hard for Gannett to carry through with a cancellation of a newspaper subscription as it is for it to deliver a paper to a subscriber whose paper doesn't arrive on any given day -- or to rethink a "cost savings" policy that results in subscribers not receiving their papers on the day of publication.
Bear in mind, as set forth above, the subscription was canceled, by phone, on May 1. A credit to the subscriber's bank account (for the subscription price of the papers paid for but that would not be received) occurred a couple of days later. Emails from Gannett indicated that the carrier had been communicated with.
And yet the paper continued to arrive -- May 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 -- then for some reason skipped the 15th and 16th, came again on the 17th, skipped the 18th, came again on the 19th, and then finally stopped, apparently for good, on the 20th.
The newspapers -- virtually all newspapers, not just Gannett's -- are in economic trouble. Their subscribers are drifting away -- and dying off -- and not being replaced by a younger generation of readers. The papers are giving away their copy for free on the Internet. They've lost classified advertising revenue to Craig's List and other online services. They've lost commercial advertising both to other media and because of the recession that's caused all businesses to cut back on expenses generally.
They need new business models, because we clearly need their investigative reporting for democracy to survive (and for bloggers to have source material!). Firing journalists from news bureaus that were often understaffed in the best of times is neither a solution nor a business model -- regardless of what Wall Street thinks.
What they clearly can do is to continue to serve the declining subscriber base they have, rather than alienate them.
And it is, among other things, sad that Gannett has chosen not to do so in this case. For Mary was not one to bad mouth the paper in question, as some Iowa City residents do. She liked the paper. Really looked forward to reading it thoroughly each morning. Liked the local coverage, the editorial and op ed pages. She's a computer whiz, and is still getting the news online. But she's not happy about it. She was happy to pay for the pleasure of holding the hard copy newspaper in her hands as her parents and grandparents had done before her.
It is Gannett that abandoned her, rather than the other way around. And if the email and conversations I've had since writing this are any guide, they've abandoned a great many other formerly loyal subscribers as well. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
A Multiple-Variable Analysis of Newspaper Delivery (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
What a treat to open my kitchen door at 4:30 this rainy Sunday morning and find two newspapers, neatly wrapped with their protective plastic covering, waiting side-by-side less than three feet from my door.
It's not every day that starts that way. And that's the subject of this morning's blog entry.
A convergence of forces have made these tough times for newspapers. Going public meant some initial infusions of cash, but also brought Wall Street's insistence on ever-increasing profits. The Internet generation's gone electronic; and even giving away free hard copy newspapers in college dorms hasn't reversed that trend -- nor has giving away the content with online editions helped their bottom line. Now even those students' newspaper-addicted parents are doing more newspaper reading on the Internet. Craig's List has taken much of the lucrative classified ad revenue. Newsprint and ink costs keep going up. And now general ad revenue is also down as the global economy collapses around every business. The Rocky Mountain News, once one of my favorites, is only the latest in a string of closing newspapers.
Meanwhile, as everyone struggles to find alternative business models for newspapers some are appearing. That was a part of the discussion six weeks ago in Nicholas Johnson, "Whither Newspapers," January 18, 2009.
This morning's commentary is much more modest. It involves the application of a proverb, with origins going back to the 14th Century, to the newspaper industry's woes:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
And what is "the nail" in this analogy?
Newspaper delivery.
I read a number of newspapers with some regularity, but only four in hard copy, two of which are delivered to my home daily.
Permit me to preface what I am about to say with some qualifiers. (a) I used to deliver newspapers in the same neighborhood to which I have now returned to live in the old family house. It is a thankless job, and I have nothing but appreciation for those who are willing to provide this service for much less pay than reason and equity would dictate. (b) Home delivery of hard copy newspapers is not a business model in which I'd be willing to invest my money -- for some of the reasons I've set forth above, and more. (Some of the alternatives are discussed in the "Whither Newspapers?" blog entry, linked above.)
So I don't think newspapers should have to provide home delivery at all.
All I'm about to suggest is that, if they are going to provide that service then there are some fundamentals requiring a little more attention.
As I mentioned, I have home delivery of two newspapers (both of which will remain nameless), so I have two different approaches to newspaper home delivery to compare.
Here is a quick once-over of what seem to me the relevant elements of home delivery.
1. Does the paper come every day, or are there more than a statistically insignificant number of days when it doesn't arrive at all?
2. Is there a regular time at which it arrives?
3. Is there a consistent location where the paper can be found?
4. When there is a problem with delivery (say, there's no paper well past the promised delivery time) can the subscriber explain the situation to a human, or must s/he try to place the round pegs of concern into the square holes of a computerized system?
Here has been my experience:
1. One of the papers comes every day. The other has a significant number of days when it does not arrive at all.
2. One of the papers usually arrives by 3:30 in the morning. The other may come at any time, when it comes at all, normally between, say, 5:00 and 8:00 a.m.
3. One of the papers is almost always just outside the kitchen door. The other requires a daily scavenger hunt -- sometimes it's under a bush, sometimes out by the city street, sometimes in winter hidden in a snow drift, and occasionally by the kitchen door (as it was this morning).
4. The newspaper that rarely requires a call has a human to answer the phone. The newspaper that often needs to be called has a computer that explains humans can only be reached during "regular business hours" -- when those humans sometimes explain that newspapers can no longer be delivered that late in the day.
One variable is manageable by a subscriber.
If the paper always comes, and is in the same place when it does, but at various times, one can look in that place and quickly see it's either there or it's not. If it always comes, and at about the same time, but may be anywhere, the subscriber can go on the scavenger hunt at the same time every day, knowing the paper will ultimately be found somewhere on or near the property.
It's the multiple variables that create the problem. When one doesn't know whether it's going to be delivered at all or not, or what time it will be if it is, or where it is to be found on a given day, the only way to receive the paper is to undertake periodic searches of the entire property during the morning hours, never knowing if it has been delivered or not, or where it may have been left.
Like I say, I (a) really appreciated not having to search for a paper in the rain this morning, (b) have great appreciation for what delivery persons go through, and suspect much of the problem is that they're not being paid enough to be able to keep the job for long, (c) don't think newspapers should have to provide home delivery of hard copy papers at all, and (d) am not making a special appeal for the delivery of my paper. The disparity between these two newspapers' delivery practices has existed for years in spite of periodic suggestions to management; and it is highly unlikely it is limited to one neighborhood.
No, this "multiple-variable analysis of newspaper delivery" is simply provided as yet one more good will offering, without charge, to a newspaper industry that has played a major role in my life over decades in a variety of ways and that I would like to see survive.
It's merely a reminder that in 21st Century business, as well as 14th Century warfare, success often turns on attention to detail -- like the nails in horseshoes and the home delivery of newspapers. Maintaining profits by cutting back on basic services has seldom if ever been a sure road to corporate survival.
And I do hope you found this blog entry promptly and properly delivered to your computer this morning. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
As Iowans continue to mourn the firing of the likes of the Register's Brian Duffy and the Press-Citizen's Bob Patton, along with dozens of their colleagues at those papers and the 15,000 laid off nationwide, things are looking pretty bleak for the newspaper industry generally all across the country.
In 2007 there were about 110 million housing units occupied year round. From 2000-2008 the number of U.S. daily papers has declined from 1492 to 1447 (that's morning (833) and evening (614) editions, so greater than the number of local newspaper companies). During this time the total circulation has declined from 55,772,000 to 52,329,000. "Newspapers and News Organizations Marketing Research," Research Wikis. I have no idea (and can find no data) on how many of those 52 million papers go to households (as distinguished from those delivered to news stands, businesses, or are distributed free to students or travelers on trains, planes and in hotels) -- and how many of those subscriber households account for more than one newspaper (in my case there are four, plus of course a variable additional number of online papers). But it seems clear that far fewer than 50% of American households subscribe to even one paper.
(Richard Perez-Pena, "Newspaper Circulation Continues to Decline Rapidly"New York Times, October 27, 2008: "The long decline in newspaper circulation over the years continues to accelerate, with sales in the spring and summer falling almost 5 percent from the previous year, figures released on Monday show, deepening the financial strain on the industry -- from 1.9 percent for The Washington Post, to 13.6 percent for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution . . . circulation at The Houston Chronicle, The Boston Globe, The Star-Ledger of Newark, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Orange County Register and The Detroit News fell 10 percent or more. The exceptions . . . were USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, . . . virtually unchanged, at 2.3 million for USA Today and 2 million for The Journal on weekdays.")
Couple the decline in readership with the even greater decline in advertising revenue, the rising costs for printing and distribution, the loss of the classified advertising revenue to the likes of Craig's List, the seeming need to give it all away for free on the Internet, and Wall Street's demand not only for beter-than-average-Fortune-500 rates of return, but ever-increasing rates of return, and it's a wonder there are still any newspapers out there. Mark Fitzgerald, "'Several Cities' Could Have No Daily Paper As Soon As 2010, Credit Rater Says,"Editor & Publisher, December 3, 2008 ("Newspaper and newspaper groups are likely to default on their debt and go out of business next year -- leaving "several cities" with no daily newspaper at all, Fitch Ratings says in a report on media released Wednesday.") Bill Boyarsky, "The Newspaper Industry Is Dying Before Our Very Eyes," Truthdig, AlterNet Media & Technology, December 18, 2008.
All of this raises a number of issues.
First off, as a law school colleague is occasionally driven to ask a classroom of silent students, "Is anybody listening? Does anybody care?"
Few today miss the disappearance from the marketplace of the horse-drawn buggy industry -- aside from the Amish, and they make their own. Automobiles, and public transportation, filled the transportation gap and took their place.
Are there any reasons to believe the disappearance of the newspaper industry would be of any greater significance, or any less likely to be replaced by something else?
The answer turns, in part, on how one defines "newspaper."
I once sat next to a sliderule salesman on an airplane at a time when transistors and hand held calculators were beginning to come on the market. Needless to say, he had a warehouse full of some really beautiful sliderules with which he was willing to part at a discount. I had been brought up on calculation by sliderule, but passed by his offer.
It was not sliderules that were essential to American science, engineering and business; it was the ability to do calculations.
So it is with newspapers. It is not necessarily still essential that we chop down trees, grind them into wood pulp, create multi-ton rolls of newsprint, ship them by truck, rail, ship, and truck again, to gigantic printing presses, where it is inked, folded, bundled and put on trucks, dropped off for delivery persons, who in turn drive around town dropping individual newspapers on subscribers' doorsteps.
What is even more essential that the ability to do calculations, however, at least in my view, is the citizens' ability to get access to information, opinion and what we call "investigative reporting" in a self-governing democracy.
Our nation's founders, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, recognized this central necessity -- and not just in the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"). They saw the need for an educated citizenry, which ultimately led to a system of free public schools, and public libraries. (Jefferson helped create both the University of Virginia and the Library of Congress.) The postal system, with reduced rates for books, magazines and newspapers, was a part of this philosophical package, as was the ultimate licensing of broadcast stations to serve "the public interest." They knew that expanding the franchise (at first limited to white, male, landowners, over 21 -- ultimately expanded to include African-Americans, then women, then everyone over 18) would count for little without an informed electorate.
Given today's policy challenges, I continue to believe that the information gathering, processing, editing and distribution function continues to be, if anything, even more essential than it was 200 years ago.
And in addition to newspapers' role as newspapers, they also play a major role in the functioning of all media. I used to say of the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC that their content was determined by morning editorial conferences at which all the participants had read the New York Times and then sat around deciding which stories they'd take pictures of that afternoon and put on the air that evening. Obviously, it's not quite that bad. But the Times is a kind of "newspaper of record" not only for our country but for the world (along with other great world newspapers); it is a repository of history as well as a serving plate of current happenings. Look at your local paper; how many of its stories come from this guy whose initials are "AP"? Who is he? He's hundreds or thousands of reporters working -- or at least who used to be working -- at newspapers all across this country that belong to the Associated Press and offer up their stories for other members' papers to use. Few if any local radio or television stations, or even networks, have journalistic resources remotely approaching those of the nation's large, urban papers -- or at least the resources they used to have. So to the extent we lose our papers we have also lost the network of journalists that supports all media (and individuals) that need or want the information newspapers provide.
But while I'm part of that small group who loves the feel of a newspaper in my hands in the morning, I also recognize that the "newspaper manufacturing industry" of my youth is not the only way our society can perform that informing function.
What do we mean by "the newspaper business"? The executives of every for profit enterprise need to ask themselves, in bad economic times as well as good, "What business are we really in, or do we want to be in?" Are we in "the steel business" or the "building materials business"? Are we just in the "department store business" or should we also be offering groceries for sale?
Stephen Buttry is clearly doing some of this kind of thinking for Eastern Iowa's paper, The Gazette. He and his staff have identified, and begun focusing on three or four separate businesses. Their response to newspapers' hard times is a willingness to "fundamentally transform" their company.
Of these four businesses, or functions, the first is information gathering; the input of others' information and opinion (news releases, statements at news conferences, online reporting), interviewing, observing, researching reports and other documents (primarily on the Internet, but elsewhere as well) -- and then writing it up as journalists and editors do, or simply present it raw.
The second is the multiple packaging of this information and reporting: much of it would simply be made available online as reference/research material; but there could also be a hard copy newspaper, a less-than-daily "magazine," supplements, advertisers (such as their "Penny Saver"), books, or sports publications. (One of the most potentially profitable things to think about are the multiples more "packaging" possibilities.)
The third is production: the creation and updating of Web pages and blog services, maintenance of the servers; the printing presses operation and maintenance; delivery services, whether by computer, truck, sidewalk boxes, or home delivery.
The fourth (as I break it down, but a part of the third in Buttry's conception) is the financial side of the business: sales of product, subscriptions, and advertising; the advertising and marketing of the various products; customer service; and collections.
This kind of thinking is not enough to make a "newspaper" profitable -- as Buttry seems to be the first to acknowledge. There are a lot of details to deal with between point "A" and point "B."
But it is an essential first step for which I think The Gazette is entitled to a lot of credit. Any corporate enterprise that continues to think of itself as being in the "newspaper business" in 2009 is probably in for tough economic times. Thinking of itself as being in the information gathering, packaging, production, and marketing businesses is not the only possible conceptual scheme, but it is a good one (in my opinion).
The survival of print. Hard copy papers have not yet totally disappeared, even if they've laid off reporters, lost circulation and advertisers. It's interesting, as noted above, that the Wall Street Journal is more than surviving. In part that's because at least a hard core of its readers can probably afford whatever the owners might like to charge subscribers, and advertisers are willing to pay handsomely to reach them. But it's also because the WSJ serves a niche, albeit one that is evolving. Visiting with Jim Hightower a couple days ago (here in town for an Iowa Corngrowers' gathering) we talked about his newsletter, which is doing quite well. I suspect there will continue to be a market for specialized, hardcopy newsletters. And some are suggesting that, however small the readership might be, it may be -- at least for a long time -- economically feasible for today's conventional newspapers to continue to publish and deliver hardcopy papers to the market that wants them, and is willing to pay for them the full cost of production, distribution and some profit.
Special interest publications. Some newspapers even today continue to have the words "Democrat" or "Republican" in their names. And there are thousands of other organizations, such as churches, and trade unions -- that will continue, or start, providing their members (and any subscribers) with hard copy reporting. About 30% of households get their television off the air. (These are the folks for whom the conversion to digital TV presents a challenge.) Something like half American homes don't have broadband Internet access. These folks will continue to be a market for hardcopy delivery of news and information, either from whatever future "newspapers" may look like, or from an organization to which these readers belong.
Blending print and online. Another model is to retain some home delivery (just not seven days a week) along with online distribution, like the Detroit papers are doing. The New York Times now offers a "special" on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday only package of delivery, thereby cutting the production and distribution costs by more than half (while possibly picking up some new subscribers who would not have wanted the paper every day, but welcome having three papers over the weekend -- and at a much reduced cost).
All online all the time. Finally, there is the Christian Science Monitor model: abandon hardcopy altogether, offering nothing but online content -- while updating it 24/7.
Home printing. I have a law school colleague, with expertise in the newspaper business, who has been urging papers for years to consider the possibility of putting printers in the homes of subscribers. Editorial (news) only accounts for about 15% of the cost of producing a newspaper. I don't know what percentage goes into producing and transporting newsprint, the printing presses, the printers' ink, and the transportation and delivery of the individual papers -- but it has to be enormous. And think about it: to receive television programs you must invest in a TV set (and these days a monthly payment for the entirety of your life to a cable company); householders have a significant portion of the capital investment in the television industry. All you need contribute to get a newspaper is a front step. The cost savings for the industry could be significant If those who want or need a hard copy of their newspaper would assume the cost of printing it in their homes. The New York Times now offers to deliver the entire paper, as each page is made up and appears in hard copy, to your home, everyday, for $175 a year (a substantial reduction from the hard copy price, if indeed the paper is even available for home delivery in your town). Admittedly, this is not the same as a printed copy, but it gives you an idea of what large, printer-ready copy might look like.
The blogosphere. Whether blogs cause you to sneer, or you view them as a form of "journalism," the fact is that they are already playing a role in the newspaper industry.
Most papers have online blogs created by their reporters and editorial writers, to which many add the blogs of ordinary citizens as well. Many papers provide readers access to the online reproduction of reporters' stories as a form of blog, to which readers may add their own "comments" about the story (and increasingly about each others' comments as well).
Blogs, including this one, certainly look to the mainstream media for information, quotes, and stimulation of ideas to write about. And there is a least some contribution the other direction -- as when bloggers got after Dan Rather for CBS' acceptance, and reporting, of what turned out to be a faked document regarding President George W. Bush's "war record," or as John Neff notes in his comment, below, when the mainstream media made use of the "here comes everybody" still and moving pictures of the recent Airbus "water landing" on the Hudson River.
The blogosphere is an example of Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody (2008). It does not require a hierarchial organization to be created or to survive; anyone can contribute and almost no one makes money from doing so. "On the Media" reported this weekend on Josh Karp's "The Printed Blog," an effort to pick from blog entries and offer them in printed form. Of course, "Google" in general, and "Google Alerts" in particular, enable anyone to create the equivalent as an online service -- and this is already being done; see e.g., BlogNetNews.com and Blog for Iowa.
The blogospher may not be to newspapers what the automobile is to the horse and buggy (that is, not only a replacement, but an improvement) but with enough participants, including the laid-off professional journalists (who will now need other sources of income to survive, but will still have some spare time and a desire to write), and more packaging/editing services, the blogosphere could fill at least some of the hole left with the disappearance of papers.
Make Google pay. For a mini debate about the wisdom, propriety and effectiveness of newspapers insisting on payment from Google for its ability to list their content, see Eric Etheridge, "Virtual Face-Off: What Does Google Owe Newspapers?"New York Times, February 4, 2009.
Sell online access to content. Since advertising revenue from newspapers' online content hasn't been the equivalent of what the hard copy ads once produced, one option is to try to move today's online freeloaders into the category of paying subscribers. This has not been easy. I at one point suggested the idea of an ASCAP model -- that is, for an annual flat fee one could examine any newspaper's online content, with a proportion of that fee (based on the proportion of hits on that newspaper's Web site to the total hits on all newspapers' Web sites) going to the papers you access. On reflection, that idea may be even more difficult to sell than the pay-per-paper approach. A more viable, and easily established, approach -- that is already being used -- is to give away most of the content while holding back some for which pay is required (for example, some of the New York Times' archives).
Sell the features, not the content. Another approach is to offer the content for free, as now, but sell the value-added features such as archives, special search tools, email alerts, delivery to cell phones and handheld devices -- while trying to think up and offer more such features.
Governmental subsidy. Finally, there is the occasional suggestion that if the government can provide a significant share of the funding for public broadcasting, and can provide bailouts for "essential" industries like investment bankers and automobile executives, it ought to be able to provide some subsidy to a truly essential industry: newspapers. My guess is that this is a non-starter, not the least of the reasons why being what I predict would be the opposition of the newspaper industry itself.
Endowments. [Jan. 29, 2009] After this blog entry was written I came upon another proposal: endowment funds to support newspapers. The authors estimate this would require something on the order of a $5 billion-dollar endowment for the New York Times alone which, in today's economy, might be a little difficult to raise on short notice from wealthy Times fans. But I thought the proposal worthy of inclusion here. David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, "News You Can Endow,"New York Times, January 27, 2009.
For a thoughtful discussion of these issues from a couple years ago by some of the industry's leaders, not inconsistent with the kind of approach I've explored here, see "Challenges to the Newspaper Industry: A PEJ Roundtable," Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, July 24, 2006.
At this point in time there's no way of predicting for sure which route the failing newspaper industry will go. Many of the major players may have disappeared entirely. Others will be transformed into something barely recognizable. Other new start ups will have evolved -- not unlike Apple's emerging competition with the behemoth IBM nearly 30 years ago.
Whatever the path, we self-governing American citizens will continue to need diverse, independent and impartial gathering of data and reporting of information and access to wise opinion. Of that I am sure. __________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
